Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21st October] That the Bill be now considered.

Debate to be resumed this day at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether this Bill will indeed be taken at 7 o'clock, in the light of the Government motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I can explain that. I was a little puzzled myself. I understand that the motion that the House may pass later will supersede what we are doing at the moment.

Mr. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ensure that the House has an opportunity to decide

whether, at 3.30 p.m., it wishes to pass the Government motion relating to Business of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Fuel Industries (Nuclear Strategy)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has involved the electricity, coal, gas and oil industries in the development of a nuclear strategy for the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I am in regular contact with the energy industries about the formulation of energy policy, which includes the role of nuclear power.

Mr. Pardoe: Given that our coal, oil and other resources give us a breathing space of perhaps 10 or 20 years of self-sufficiency, what estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the contribution that could be made to our energy use by alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind power? Has he done a similar study to that conducted by the Lockheed Corporation, which has estimated that 20 per cent. of the United States' energy use could be supplied by wind power by the year 2000?

Mr. Benn: All the information that we have on this subject has been published and I shall send it to the hon. Gentleman so that he may have an opportunity to study it. There is no doubt that these benign alternative sources of energy are available at a cost and after a period.
When the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study the recommendations made to me by those who have studied this matter, we might pursue it further. There is no doubt of the scope, but whether it would make an impact in the mid-term is not altogether clear.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend think that this country needs a green field oil refinery?

Mr. Benn: That is another question.

Mr. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about an energy policy for years, but when are we to have a policy for the United Kingdom and when will the Government work out a realistic arrangement with the EEC?

Mr. Benn: As far as the EEC is concerned, the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully and will know that I went to the Energy Council in February or March ready to endorse the recommendations from the Commission, but difficulties arose elsewhere. We had a meeting in Luxembourg last week, when there was some serious discussion. I made the point, with which I think the House will agree, that protection of energy investment that has already taken place is a necessary preliminary to any energy policy that relates to minimum support price.

Mr. Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that there is no danger of nuclear development being given second place in the thinking of his Department? Is he aware that the industrial future of this country depends on our having an adequate nuclear capacity?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend knows, because his Select Committee is working on it, that discussions are in progress about the steam-generating heavy water reactor, and I have made clear that there must be proper public debate before a decision is reached on the fast breeder. I think that the House will believe it right

that matters of this importance should be discussed before decisions are made.

Gas and Electricity Disconnections

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what advice he has received from the management and trade unions employed in the gas and electricity supply industries concerning the importance of the ultimate sanction of disconnection in order to secure the payment of energy bills; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John A. Cunningham): The electricity and gas industries have expressed their concern over recommendations that their statutory powers of disconnection should no longer be exercised. As my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd August, it has been agreed with the industries that they should apply a code of practice designed to protect genuine hardship cases from disconnection.

Mr. Gow: Has the code of practice yet been published? If not, when will it be published? Has the Minister read the courageous speech of the Secretary of State at the Labour Party conference on 1st October, when he resisted attempts to remove the ultimate sanction of disconnection in cases where there is an unreasonable withholding of payment of charges for gas and electricity?

Dr. Cunningham: The code of practice has not yet been published. Discussions to finalise it are still going on between the Department of Energy, other Departments and the industries concerned. The opinion of trade unionists in the industries will be taken into account. I think that my right hon. Friend was saying in Blackpool that the Government had decided that, for the moment, the statutory power of disconnection should not be removed. This matter will be kept under review, particularly in the light of the working of the code of practice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is the closest possible consultation between local electricity and gas board officials and social workers, since early notification of a failure to pay gas and electricity bills is often a symptom of hardship and ought,


therefore, to be drawn to the notice of those authorities?

Dr. Cunningham: We absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. Whatever the code of practice may say, its usefulness will depend on the spirit in which it is applied at a local level.
We are aware of the problem and wish to encourage people not to wait till they are in difficulties but to consult the utilities if they think that a problem will arise.

Power Stations (Coal Consumption)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the number of tons consumed at coal-fired power stations over each of the past six years; what are the estimated consumptions over each of the next three years; and if he will give the comparable figures in million tons of coal equivalent for oil-fired power stations.

Mr. Benn: With permission, I will circulate the details in the Official Report.
Over the last three years there has been an increase in coalburn of 4½ million tons, and a decrease in oilburn of 9·6 million tons coal equivalent. The CEGB's present central estimate of coal consumption in the current financial year is 68 million tons—that is, an increase of over 1 million tons over last year—with oil consumption down by over 3 million tons, to about 13 million tons coal equivalent. Over the next two years the consumption of both fuels may be expected to increase slightly.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a feeling throughout the industry that the Government are lax in making a decision about a new coal-fired station? When will they make up their mind to build a power station so that, when the coal at Selby starts coming on stream, the power station will be available to use it? Will he also take into account that the plant-making industry is greatly disturbed because of the lack of work, and that if we are not careful, because we are reluctant to make a decision, we shall lose highly-skilled teams of men to other countries, which would be a great loss to this country?

Mr. Benn: I confirm the importance of this decision. My hon. Friend knows that I have met the management and unions on this matter. The papers that have come in, particularly on the trade union side, have been of the highest order, and have contained great detail. They have been put before Members and the Government. There has never been any doubt in the Government's mind that another coal-fired station would be linked with Selby. With the postponement of the SGHWR, which was announced in the summer, the question of another order for a coal-fired station is very much in the Government's mind. However, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement of the decision.

Mr. Costain: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the process of getting rid of fly ash from power stations, thousands of hectares of good land are being destroyed? Will he institute research to see whether this fly ash can be put into derelict mines, and so preserve the countryside?

Mr. Benn: I shall certainly consider that point.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the urgency of the Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)? Does he appreciate that it is not good enough constantly to tell us that the Government are considering, reviewing and thinking about and that they have got the matter in mind? It is time that some action was taken. Thousands of people will be thrown out of jobs in the power generating industry if action is not taken. When all these factors have been taken into account over this long period, will my right hon. Friend get something done?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend knows very well, because I have discussed this matter with a number of people over a long period, that the Government have been working on it for a considerable period. They set up an inquiry through the CPRS to consider the impact on the plant industry. The responsible Minister is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. There has been no lack of urgency by the Government. If my hon. Friend discussed this matter with those concerned in the industry, he would discover that they are well satisfied with


the extent to which the Government have taken this problem on board.

Mr. Biffen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been most unfair towards him and that we appreciate that there are serious difficulties attending any Government decision that will add to the total installed electricity capability when there is already a substantial shortfall in demand?

Mr. Benn: Undoubtedly one of the problems confronting the Government is that there has been no energy planning for a long period and there have been wide fluctuations in forecasts by the CEGB which have gravely affected the prospects for continuous work in the industry. These matters must be sorted out. At the same time, it would be a tragedy if this country were to run any risk whatever of losing capacity in the heavy electrical industry, upon which so much of our future at home and abroad depends. The Government have made this clear at every meeting with delegations from the industry, both management and unions.
The following are the details:
The consumption of coal and oil in CEGB power stations during the last six financial years has been:


Year
Coal (million tons)
Oil (million tons coal equivalent)


1970–71
…
67·5
19·4


1971–72
…
61·5
22·7


1972–73
…
61·9
26·2


1973–74
…
62·7
24·2


1974–75
…
63·8
23·2


1975–76
…
66·4
16·6

Oil Prices

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations have been made by him to OPEC about an increase in the price of oil.

The Minister State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Her Majesty's Government have not made recent representations on oil prices.

Mr. Arnold: What kind of balance should be struck with regard to oil pricing generally between Britain's long-term interest as an oil producer and our present position as a heavy consumer? Is it still the Government's intention to press

the EEC for a minimum floor price for oil, currently quoted at $7 per barrel?

Dr. Mabon: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". Last week my right hon. Friend persuaded the Council of Energy Ministers to look at this matter in greater detail, in the hope that we would reach agreement by the end of this year, but that remains to be seen.
Regarding the other matter, we must consider not only the position of the United Kingdom but the conditions that will inflict themselves on many of the poorer, less developed nations if OPEC raises its price substantially.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the future of oil prices, it is essential that indigenous fuel resources, such as that recently found in the Vale of Belvoir coalfield, should be exploited as quickly as possible, with due regard being paid to the relevant environmental factors?

Dr. Mabon: Yes. I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Viggers: When are we proposing to apply to join OPEC, and will our attitude then change?

Dr. Mabon: In order to qualify, we would have to comply with the OPEC rule that one-half of our entire exports is in oil. We have a long way to go before we achieve that position.

SGHWR Programme

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish comparative data on the expenditure and delay to the SGHWR project compared with the budget figures to the latest available date.

Mr. Benn: I announced in July that expenditure on the SGHWR in 1977–78 would be reduced by £45 million. Expenditure in 1976–77 will be approximately £15 million less than previously expected. There has, in effect, been one year's deferment of the project.

Mr. Warren: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I am afraid that he has not answered my Question. I wanted to know how much had been spent against that which had been


budgeted. Bearing in mind that he has not given me the figures, may I have an assurance that he will not take any final decision on the future of the SGHWR before the reference design has been completed in 1977?

Mr. Benn: I am sorry if I did not give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he sought. Many are published. If there has been an omission, I shall see that it is remedied. It has always been clear that the order for a power station of this kind would have to be cleared against the nuclear inspectors, and so on. That would be normal practice. Here we have a combination of a technical slippage, the need for public economy, and a rundown in current forecasts of demand which made it possible for the slippage to occur.

Mr. Rost: When does the Secretary of State expect to have an updated cost estimate of the SGHWR programme?

Mr. Benn: I shall look into that and see what the latest figures are. In fact, it has turned out to be more costly than was at first thought.

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the SGHWR nuclear reactor programme.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: The National Nuclear Corporation has sought authority from my right hon. Friend for the Nuclear Power Company to carry out an assessment of the SGHWR, PWR and AGR systems. He has agreed to this on the understanding that it will in no way jeopardise the nuclear industry's ability to start work on site on an SGHWR early in 1979. Agreement to this assessment does not mean that the Government are committed to its conclusions.

Mr. Rost: If evidence accumulates to the Minister showing that the SGHWR programme is proving too difficult and too costly, and will not be commercially viable in export markets, would it not be more sensible to reach an early decision for us to cut our losses and to allow the British nuclear industry the opportunity of developing a system—the AGR or PWR—that would at least win us some export orders?

Dr. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend cannot reach a decision until some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned have been covered. In that connection, the views of the Nuclear Power Company are germane to the discussion.

Mr. Hooley: As we already have the Magnox, AGR and the SGHWR systems either actually working or in development, what on earth is the point of reviving the arguments about the PWR?

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have Magnox and AGR stations, but we do not have a commercial SGHWR station operating in this country. My hon. Friend will know from his membership of the Select Committee that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has written to my right hon. Friend advising him to look again at the choice of thermal reactor.

Fuel Bills

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has made to assist the less-well-off to cope with their fuel bills during the coming winter.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Detailed arrangements will shortly be published for the scheme that my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd August to allocate £25 million to help those likely to have the greatest difficulty with electricity bills this winter. The gas and electricity industries, together with the Government, are making good progress with the code of practice designed to help poor consumers to make suitable payment arrangements and to protect them from disconnection.

Mr. Janner: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement about the imminence of details. Is he aware that it is not merely electricity which is worrying people, but coal, coke, oil, paraffin and—

Mr. Skinner: Solicitors' fees.

Mr. Janner: —other fuels for which people have to pay? Is he further aware that elderly people do not consider this to be a joke, whether the joke is made on one side of the House or the other?


This is one of the greatest and most imminent problems that will worry many of them to death before the winter arrives.

Dr. Cunningham: The Government are well aware of the problem of heavy bills in the winter, particularly in the case of the elderly. The point about allocating money for electricity bills is that almost everyone receives an electricity bill, as opposed to bills for other fuels. We felt that help ought to be concentrated in the area where it would be most effective. Many elderly people live in houses heated only by electricity. Another point about the scheme is that, with limited public resources at the Government's disposal, we recognise that we cannot help everyone.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister assure us that people who experience difficulty in budgeting will have restored to them the facility of prepayment meters?

Dr. Cunningham: An important part of the discussions on the code of practice has been concerned with the availability of prepayment metres. I cannot anticipate the publication of the code, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall have his point very much in mind.

Mr. Mike Thomas: When does my hon. Friend expect the Government to reply to the Select Committee report on this matter? What confidence has he that electricity and gas boards will carry out the instructions given to them by him and his colleagues, bearing in mind that I have had continued correspondence with his predecessor, instancing examples of occasions when the boards do not carry out the spirit of what I know to be the Secretary of State's intention?

Dr. Cunningham: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "As soon as possible". The answer to the second part is that trade unionists within the industries are concerned about the attacks being made upon them which seem to indicate that they do not care about the welfare of people who have difficulty in paying their bills. I know that is true in the gas industry, because I used to represent trade unionists in that industry before I came to the House. It is also true in the electricity industry. We should bear in mind that there are people

in the industries who are as concerned as are many hon. Members to ensure that people who are in difficulty with their bills are treated fairly. As I said in answer to a previous question, our aim will be to ensure that the spirit of the code of practice is interpreted effectively at local level.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister recognise the difficulties which arise because so much of the assistance given with fuel bills goes to those who are already in receipt of social security? Does he also recognise that there are many categories of people, particularly among the working poor, who experience difficulty with energy bills and do not receive any benefit?

Dr. Cunningham: We are aware of this problem. That is why the £25 million scheme will cover those who are in receipt of the family income supplement as well as those who are in receipt of supplementary benefit. But the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who are pressing me, in the next breath will be pressing the Government to cut public expenditure. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister agree that improving home insulation, particularly for the less-well-off and the elderly, is an effective and sensible way to help them cope with their fuel bills? Is he satisfied that enough is being done by interdepartmental discussion to ensure that this method is progressed?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. We understand that 66 per cent. of all local authority housing has no loft insulation of any kind—and a large number of elderly people live in local authority accommodation. The Department of Energy is concerned to try to improve this situation. One of the aims of the recently announced job creation project, to which £70 million has been allocated, is to improve loft insulation in local authority houses for the very purpose mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Sea Wave Energy

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made towards the conversion of sea wave energy into electricity.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: This Department, on the advice of the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, has set up a research programme to examine the feasibility of large-scale extraction of sea wave energy. Details of this programme were given to the House on 29th April this year. The work is being directed by the Wave Energy Steering Committee which reports to our Chief Scientist.
Four particular types of device have been chosen for study, each depending on a different mode of operation. These are now at different stages of development, but it is expected that at the end of about two years sufficient information will be available to allow a decision on whether or not to proceed to larger-scale models and eventually prototype work.

Mr. Jessel: If the experiments go well, what proportion of British electricity requirements does the Minister foresee ultimately coming from this system?

Dr. Mabon: I know that there is a certain amount of hilarity about this in the House, but the amount of energy in the seas around the United Kingdom is in the range of two to four times the present-day output of electricity. It is difficult to predict the development rate at which we shall be able to exploit wave energy, but the figure of about 4,000 mW electrical equivalent by the end of the century has been judged by scientists as a reasonable forecast, so I think that the hilarity should be restrained.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that an official report declared the viability of tidal power in the Severn Estuary more than 50 years ago? Will it take equally long for nothing to be done about sea wave energy?

Dr. Mabon: There is a tide in the affairs of men—. As the Science Research Council, Harwell and other notable institutions are examining this matter very seriously, and as the Government have great energy, something will be done.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the early work done in Scotland, will the Minister confirm that research will continue in Scotland, bearing in mind the significant wave reactions off the Western Isles?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, but that is nothing to the Labour typhoon that is about to sweep away the SNP.

Electrical Engineering Industry

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of electricity generation and its effects on the turbine generating industry; and what are the possibilities of transferring some of the CEGB research staff to the turbine generating industry.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the ordering policy of the nationalised energy industries in relation to the British power engineering industry, in the light of the forthcoming CPRS report on the industry.

Mr. Benn: I have received numerous representations about the present problems of the power plant manufacturers and have held useful discussions with those concerned. These problems are being considered by the Central Policy Review Staff in the report that is due at the end of this month. Staffing questions are a matter for the industries concerned.

Mr. Allaun: To prevent the collapse of this industry probably for ever, and the loss of thousands of jobs in Manchester, Sheffield, Rugby and the North-East, will the Minister decide now to proceed with Drax B early in the coming year? If he will not give a decision this afternoon, when will he announce his decision?

Mr. Benn: I share my hon. Friend's concern, and so do the Government. The maintenance not only of jobs now but of capacity for the future for home needs and export development is of essential national importance. In the past we have seen much of our engineering capacity disappear. I am not in a position to announce a decision today, but it follows from what I said earlier about the deferment of the SGHWR that a coal-fired station—Drax B is coal-fired—will come forward for consideration in this context. I know the industry's anxiety, but I think that the industry recognises that the Government should approach this matter seriously and that the industry is


ready to allow us to complete our consideration before announcing our conclusions.

Mrs. Bain: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a desperate need for his Department to clarify the Government's overall long-term strategy planning for the power generation industry? Does he also accept that an early statement would be greatly welcomed by many industries, including the boiler-making industry, which is so important to the economy of western Scotland and the employment prospects there?

Mr. Benn: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. It is not possible for the supplying industries to be able to plan their future unless they can be sure of a steady flow of orders coming from the industries concerned. One of the most powerful reasons, among many others, for having a proper energy planning mechanism is that reasonable security should be available for those who have so much to offer on the industrial side.

Mr. Joseph Dean: My right hon. Friend referred to exports. Although the placing of the order for Drax B would be very acceptable, it would relieve matters only in the immediate future. Would my right hon. Friend care to go into the question of the export effort with the Secretaries of State for Industry and Trade and try to get the manufacturers of turbines in this country to make more effort in the South American market? I understand that Venezuela is placing largish orders for hydroelectric and generating plant, to which the manufacturers in this country appear to be deliberately turning a blind eye.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that it is not only the home position but the export possibilities which should decide the future shape of the industry. As we are such a big energy supplier, and will become a bigger one, it would be right for this country to aim to supply not only the fuel but the equipment which allows that fuel to be used, including heavy electrical equipment. I shall look into the two cases that my hon. Friend has mentioned and refer them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Biffen: If, in the light of the Central Policy Review Staff report, the Secretary of State requires the CEGB to order a power station ahead of its own assessed requirement, will he ensure that the public is made aware of the subsidy involved in that decision?

Mr. Benn: All the implications, and the long-term energy planning, need to be thought about most carefully by the House. One cannot, on the one hand, attempt to take advantage of the daily fluctuations of market forces and, at the same time, expect to retain any decision over the future of these key fuel industries or their supplying industries. The cost of that against the cost of losing capacity and having to import fuel, which would restrict the demand for heavy electrical equipment in future, would have to be confronted fairly and squarely. It is with that in mind that I am determined to develop a proper long-term energy policy.

Mr. Biffen: None the less, will the Secretary of State now answer my question—when this decision is taken, will he ensure that a proper amount of information is given, so that the public can make their judgment?

Mr. Benn: I think this information is made public. The Ince B Station was brought forward and it has been necessary for some subvention to be made by the Government in pursuit of that interest, which, as far as I recall, was taken by the previous Government. There is no desire to withhold information on these matters. What I am saying is that if it is necessary to do that, it would be for the longer-term interests, and we might then have to consider what the short-term cost was.

Oil Platforms

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the likely level of activity in the United Kingdom platform-building industry in 1977.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: As I announced recently, the Government believe that there is a reasonable prospect of three, perhaps four, platform orders


by the end of 1977 or early 1978. Our aim is to ensure that United Kingdom yards are given a full and fair opportunity to compete for these orders.

Mr. Gray: Is the Minister aware that the platform building industry is in real danger of disintegrating due to lack of orders? Bearing that in mind, will he ask the Secretary of State to make an early decision on the Williams and Mertz report about the proposed gas collection line, as this could assist the platform yards to diversify in their attempts to keep going?

Dr. Matron: We are seriously considering this proposal by Williams-Mertz. There is a second stage on which I hope the Government will soon be able to make a statement.
On the generality of the position, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will want to exaggerate it. Two yards in the Highlands Region are very well placed for orders.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has my hon. Friend considered discussing with the ordering part of the industry the possibility of bringing the orders forward from the dates he has mentioned, since many yards are faced with a short-term unemployment position? Will he consider the possibility of discussing, perhaps with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a forward stock ordering scheme, so that once orders are placed they can be processed with the utmost possible speed?

Dr. Mabon: On the first part, yes. It is my job daily to urge on the different companies which come to see us about these matters our anxiety to give confidence to the industry by their bringing forward the orders, or at least bringing forward the announcement of orders. That is almost as important. I do not think that having stock platforms is a realistic proposition. [Interruption.] I mean modules, not platforms. That might have been looked at more closely than has been done so far. I would prefer that we dealt with real orders rather than orders in stock. In respect of actual orders, I would point out that exactly a year ago there was no such thing as the Murchison field. Now there is a platform being ordered by Conoco

for the Murchison field. Therefore, these matters can change quite rapidly.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister comment on the announcement today about the prospects of a platform being set up in the yard at Portavadie, which is not yet operational, although it has cost a lot of Government money? Will he comment on the effect of initiating action in that yard and other yards, such as Ardyne and Kishorn, producing concrete platforms, where, if orders are not placed in future, there will be a drop in the labour force?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman knows as much as I do about this matter, namely, that some companies may prefer to have a particular design. If they prefer to go to Portavadie in order to acquire a different design from those constructed in other yards making concrete platforms, they are free to do so. Where the Government would be remiss would be in closing down Portavadie and excluding ourselves from orders in future and seeing them go to another country.

Mr. Viggers: How does the Minister expect us to have a proper share in the industrial development of North Sea oil as long as British companies and nationalised industries have to borrow their money at 15 per cent., whereas foreign competition can borrow its money at 6 per cent.?

Dr. Mabon: That is really a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for me.

Mr. Litterick: In view of the present unexpectedly high extraction rates from the North Sea oilfields, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now urgent for his Department, together with the Department of Industry, to move fast to conclude planning agreements not only with the rig building industry but also with all those industries connected with oil, such as the refining and the petrochemical industries?

Dr. Mabon: I do not think that my hon. Friend lacks confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend, who has such a profound view of planning agreements, or would suspect that he is not trying to push ahead as fast as he can. In my own personal experience of my right hon. Friend, he is moving as fast as he can.

Environment (Royal Commission's Report)

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he intends to take over the latest report from the Royal Commission on the Environment.

Mr. Benn: I am considering the specific recommendations in the report which relate to my responsibilities. The Government will take full account of the report in reaching decisions on nuclear power.

Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing concern about the way we deal with nuclear waste products? Does he take on board the recommendation in the report that we should set up a nuclear waste disposal corporation to do development work for dealing with nuclear waste and report back to the Department of the Environment and the Minister of State for Agriculture?

Mr. Benn: I am well aware of the growing concern, not only in this country but world-wide, about this problem, the magnitude of which may not have been fully appreciated in the early days. The recommendations made in the Flowers Report are the ones that the Government will consider. At the moment I am not able to say anything in answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question about the waste disposal corporation.

Mr. Dalyell: As we are using 60 per cent. of the refining capacity, will the Secretary of State refer to the Royal Commission the question of the good sense or otherwise of setting up a green field refining site at Nigg?

Mr. Benn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence. In view of the fact that he has asked me whether I will do that, I am bound to say that I shall consider it and write to him on the matter.

Mr. Forman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the best Government response on the Flowers Report would be a period of intelligent delay, during which our nuclear industry would be able to satisfy beyond doubt some of the very sensible, stringent, safety and environmental requirements suggested in the report?

Mr. Benn: That argument is one that emerges from one reading of the report. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being the only hon. Member who responded to my request to put questions about safety, which I have now put to the Nuclear Inspectorate. A combination of economic factors and uncertainties about safety, not yet entirely resolved, and the fact that the forecasts are not as strong as they were and that energy supplies may be more plentiful than we thought, justify us in taking adequate time to be wholly satisfied about that question.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I take it from that answer that, on balance, my right hon. Friend is against the fast breeder reactor rather than for it, and that he takes the view that the dangers exceed the benefits?

Mr. Benn: What I have said today—I must stick to it, although I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to push me further—is that these are matters of very great public interest. There are uncertainties that should be publicly aired, and the Government are determined that sufficient time will be available for information to be made public before a decision is reached.

Mr. Biffen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Sir Brian Flowers and his colleagues deserve the warmest congratulations of the House for having initiated a debate with the most profound implications for the future structure of our society? How does he hope that the House will take part in this debate? Does he intend to publish the Government's reactions to the Flowers Report, or is he pressing the Leader of the House for time, so that we may have an early and considered debate on this matter?

Mr. Benn: I shall certainly convey to Sir Brian Flowers the tribute paid to him by the hon. Member—one that I absolutely share. I have myself seen Sir Brian to thank him very much for the work that has been done. As for the form of parliamentary debate that should take place, there is a Select Committee, there will be opportunities for this to be discussed, and, without speaking for the Leader of the House, who is responsible for Government business, I should think it inconceivable that a decision of this magnitude could be taken without the


House having an opportunity to express its view. I shall certainly convey that view to my right hon. Friend, but I must not be taken to be announcing future Government business.

Coal Stocks

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on coal stocks.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Due to the fall in demand for energy, coal stocks are high, but they are not excessive. The Government are assisting the National Coal Board by providing stocking aid this year. The level of stocks in South Wales poses a particular problem, which is being examined.

Mr. Hannam: Is the Minister aware of the adverse effect that large coal stocks are having on productivity in our mines, especially compared with other countries? Will he adopt two measures to try to deal with this long-term problem? First, will he ensure the provision of better and longer-lasting equipment for the extraction of coal, and, second, will he bring into effect a steady reduction in the retirement age of miners from the present unacceptable level?

Dr. Mabon: With all respect, that matter is raised by another Question. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to deal with these matters.

Mr. Ioan Evans: What action is being taken to reduce and, if possible, eliminate imports of coal and to encourage the export of coal so as to reduce these stocks?

Dr. Mabon: We are certainly anxious to get back into the coal exporting business. This matter was discussed at the Council of Energy Ministers meeting last week. I would not exaggerate the amount of our coal stocks. After all, we may face a tough winter, with stocks run down substantially. As for importing coal, there are certain inhibitions on us, inasmuch as long-term contracts have been signed which must be honoured, but we are keeping the matter under close review.

Mr. Michael Latham: Since the previous Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)—told

me in an official letter only three months ago that the Government were in no way committed, either in principle or in detail, to the Vale of Belvoir coal mine, will the Minister withdraw the suggestion that he made earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that the Government are in some way committed to this project?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot withdraw the answer that I gave, because what my hon. Friend said and what I said is true. As to the desirability of mining in that area, that is a matter for planning, for the Department of the Environment in the first instance, and for a public hearing. But if the decision is that we shall go ahead with this, subject to certain safeguards, it will be a welcome addition to our resources.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty with the electricity supply industry is that there is not enough load and there is too much coal? Would not matters be helped if the Department gave some attention to a rational pricing policy for all energy resources?

Dr. Mabon: Certainly, most of our coal is electricity coal and not suitable for burning in domestic fires or boilers. Therefore, the suggestion that we should sell the coal to old-age pensioners at reduced prices and similar suggestions are not realistic. However, my hon. Friend makes a fundamental point, which we shall consider.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayhew—I beg the hon. Member's pardon.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: No matter, Mr. Speaker—"a rose by any other name". Does the Minister agree that the large stocks of coal have a depressing effect on those working in the industry? He said just now that he hoped that we would get back into the export business. Does he realise that that will be not at all well received by those in the industry who hope that if there is any silver lining from the fall in the value of our currency it is that our goods will be cheaper abroad? Is not the export position of Britsh coal depressing in the extreme, since the whole market seems to have evaporated? Will someone get off his bottom and go out and sell British coal


now, when its price advantage has never been better?

Dr. Mabon: I am not certain about the hon. Gentleman's being a rose, but there were certainly many thorns in that question. I do not accept his depressing view of the industry. The subject of productivity will come up on a later Question. It is important for the industry to get back into exporting. Our European partners hope that we can contribute in that area, and I am certain that the National Union of Mineworkers wants to see us back as we used to be—one of the best exporters in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Crown Agents (Fay Report)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he has now received the report of the Fay Committee dealing with the Crown Agents; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Reginald Prentice): No, Sir. I expect the committee to report in the first part of next year.

Mr. Skinner: In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend indicate, by publishing information in the Official Report, the extent to which the Crown Agents in recent times have broken the law by failing to pay the dollar premium on certain transactions? Does it not follow that the taxpayer, who is largely footing the bill for the Crown Agents now as a result of those transactions, has to find an extra £3½ million? Why is it found necessary for the Crown Agents to have a subsidiary bank in the tax haven of the Bahamas?

Mr. Prentice: None of those questions arises from the original Question. If my hon. Friend wants to ask me questions about those matters, he can do so. I do not understand why he keeps putting down these Questions, with supplementaries that become increasingly offensive and increasingly irrelevant.

Mr. Spearing: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that when some misgivings were expressed in this House over the activities of the Crown Agents, one of the causes of concern was the manner

in which and the authorisation by which the former Crown Agents expanded from their well-proven traditional role? Will he assure us that the Fay Report will deal with the authorisations that were or were not, supposedly, given at that time? If not, will he ask for further investigations to be pursued?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend is fan-to refer to the disquiet that was felt in the House about the activities of the Crown Agents. That is why the Fay Committee was appointed by my predecessor. Its report will be published in due course. In the meantime, I am glad that my hon. Friend drew a distinction between the undesirable investments of the Crown Agents and their traditional activities. Their traditional activities have continued. They showed a profit last year, and they are of great benefit to this country and to developing countries throughout the world.

Arab Refugees

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether he will offer development aid towards assisting Arab refugees in the Gaza Strip.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Frank Judd): I think that we can best assist in this field through the substantial contributions we already provide to the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Britain expects to contribute some £3·75 million directly to the agency in 1976 and we also bear our share of the European Community contribution to it.

Mr. Canavan: Since that refugee problem has existed for almost one-third of the century, and since thousands of people are living in absolute squalor in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, will my hon. Friend assure us that he will continue to do all in his power to assist in rehabilitation programmes to try to rehouse these refugees and their families?

Mr. Judd: We deeply appreciate the reasons for my hon. Friend's anxiety. The British Government are the second largest cumulative contributor to the agency after the United States, with the basic contributions that I have just outlined.

Sir John Hall: What contributions are being made by the oil-rich Arab countries to helping Arab refugees?

Mr. Judd: UNRWA is an international institution, which draws its support from the world community as a whole.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not a scandal that the oil-rich countries should not make a real contribution towards helping the Arab refugees? If the Government are making any representations, is it not time that they made them to those who are very rich indeed, and asked them to help the poor people of their own nationality?

Mr. Judd: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his concern about this matter, will agree that the lead given by the Government on this issue is one of which the whole international community should take note.

International Development Association

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister for Overseas Development what discussions he has held with the appropriate Minister of the West German Government concerning the fifth replenishment of the IDA.

Mr. Prentice: I have not recently had a meeting with my West German colleague, but I expect to see him later this week at a meeting of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. My officials have naturally had bilateral discussions with their colleagues from other countries, including West Germany, in preparation for or during the various international meetings which have been held on this important subject.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd that a country with reserves of $35 billion should be haggling and niggling over a contribution to this important agency? Will he use all his influence with both the Germans and the Japanese to make sure that these international bodies, which are of vital importance to the world economy, and not only ours, are replenished on a sufficient scale?

Mr. Prentice: I agree very much about the importance of the replenishment of the IDA. My hon. Friend will be glad to note that at a meeting held in Japan on 12th and 13th October a considerable amount of progress was made. Among

other Governments, the German Government said that they expected to be able to play their part in a replenishment which would be something between $7 billion and $7½ billion from the traditional IDA donors. In addition to that, we would hope to receive new contributions from the oil exporting countries.

Mr. Forman: Would not the British point of view carry more weight in these discussions, and would we not be able to exercise more influence, were it not for the fact that the British Government have been almost the most frequent arrival at the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions for grants-in-aid or loans of one kind or another? Would it not be sensible if we exercised our minds on the matter before trying to back up the points of view put forward by Labour Members?

Mr. Prentice: That matter goes a little wider than the original Question, but I agree that our influence in world affairs will be stronger as and when our economy becomes stronger. It behoves hon. Members on both sides of the House to make a constructive contribution towards the solution of that problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Nuclear Power Stations

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has plans to publish further material to allow public debate to take place on the building of further nuclear plants in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish and encourage public debate on the dangers to the public that might be incurred if the United Kingdom builds a commercial scale nuclear fast reactor.

Mr. Benn: I welcome public debate and shall continue to keep the public fully informed about factors bearing on nuclear decisions. In this connection, I have just pubished some questions bearing on the safety of the fast reactor, which I am putting to the Nuclear Inspectorate and other bodies concerned, and I shall in due course publish the answers that I receive.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that what we need will be objective information on a variety of matters


and not the bland unsubstantiated assurances that have been criticised by the Royal Commission? Cannot he set an example in the short term in the way in which he deals with the reprocessing plant question arising at Windscale, by providing adequate information on long-term problems which might affect the work force and the problem of pollution in the Irish Sea? There are serious problems on both aspects of our nuclear policy on which we need information.

Mr. Benn: I entirely agree that people are entitled to have clear answers to the questions that are put. On the other hand, if there are uncertainties, as there are, people should know exactly what is the nature of those uncertainties before a decision is taken. The Windscale question is a separate matter, and there is another Question on the Order Paper about that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend received the same representations as I have from the Transport and General Workers' Union at Caithness to the effect that there should be a demonstration of the commercial fast breeder reactor sited at Caithness and built by a consortium of the Central Electricity Generating Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? Will he give considerato these views?

Mr. Benn: I have had representations of all kinds, including those to which my hon. Friend refers. At Dounreay there is a 250MW fast reactor now on stream. The decision that we have to take is whether to go ahead with the CFR—the commercial fast breeder reactor—and it is on this that there must be time for public discussion.

Coal Production

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current level of productivity in the coal industry.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The level of productivity has been disappointing. This is fully recognised by both sides of the industry. The National Coal Board and the mining unions are setting up a joint team to investigate the problem, and to recommend positive measures to improve productivity.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can the Minister throw any further light on criticisms that have been made of the mechanical equipment that is now working underground? During my own visit to the South Wales coalfield during the recess, while I was watching a plough I saw it break down four times. There is now concern that this matter could be holding up productivity. Secondly, can the Minister give any idea of how one can motivate the miner, upon whom this industry depends, at a time of price and pay restraint?

Dr. Mabon: I am not certain about the point raised by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his supplementary question. However, I shall certainly look into the matter and see whether we can get any information on that. I am told, however, that productivity is influenced to some extent by the increasing number of miners who are employed on development work. I am not hiding from the House the fact that the level of stocks may to some extent be acting as a disincentive to production. The productivity target for 1976–77 was 46·5 cwt per man-shift. In fact, that was reached in February, but productivity has slumped back since then.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the productivity rate in the United Kingdom mining industry is, on the whole, very much higher than the rates of our competitors in the Common Market? Does he also accept—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I thought that it was about time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw."] Ask me to withdraw in a minute.
Does my hon. Friend also accept that there is an optimum with regard to technological advance that is bound to be reached in the mining industry, and that it could be argued that we have almost reached that point? Will he bear in mind that what he should concentrate his mind upon is the attempt to get rid of those coal stocks in order to raise morale?

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend and I at least share the distinction of having actually worked hi a coal mine. Those


who have had to work in small seams realise how difficult it is to win coal. Post-war pits in, for example, Yorkshire and the Midlands area achieved outputs per man-shift of 70 cwt. I think that our miners, given the same chances in the same pits and with the same machinery, would be able to produce just as much as anyone else.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that increased productivity would help consumers, through the level of prices, would help British exports, and is the clue to higher earnings in the industry? After confirming that, will he state what was the level of productivity this year, last year and the year before that?

Dr. Mabon: I confirm the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, but what I said was that the target was to be 46·5 cwt. per man-shift. In fact, the figure reached in February was 46·3 cwt. The figure is now, I regret to say, 42·4 cwt. for the 27 weeks ended 2nd October.

£ STERLING

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement.
The sterling dollar rate declined sharply when business began this morning. At one point, it was more than 7 cents down on its closing rate in London at the end of last week, a week in which sterling held up well in active trading conditions. There has been some improvement in the rate in the last few hours.
I understand that the whole of today's pressure has stemmed from the story in The Sunday Times yesterday which suggested that the International Monetary Fund and the United States Treasury have agreed on a set of conditions, including a lower exchange rate, for the projected United Kingdom drawing from the Fund.
This story has been denied in the most unequivocal terms both by the IMF and by the United States Treasury. The House will have seen that Mr. William Simon, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, has described the story as—I quote his words—"irresponsible and patently untrue". Mr. William Dale, the Acting Managing Director of the IMF, said that the reports—I quote again—

have absolutely no basis in fact as to either the Fund's methods of procedure or the particular nature and size of the terms. The Fund does not, and cannot, determine its views on detailed measures until after a careful examination of the economic indicators on the spot.
These are Mr. Dale's words.
In fact, the mission from the IMF staff will not be arriving in London for discussions with Her Majesty's Government until next month. It will not form a view on what terms are appropriate until it has been able to assess the prospects for the British economy in the light of Treasury forecasts which will then be available.

Sir G. Howe: The House will be glad to have the Chancellor's confirmation of the firm denials already made by the United States Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, but does this not suggest the necessity for speeding up the timetable of the visit of the IMF? Is not the entire story a savage condemnation of the Chancellor's management of the economy—namely, that 7 cents has been knocked off the value of the pound as a result of a single newspaper story? Will the Chancellor not now accept that it is only by resolute and urgent action in cutting public spending, and by abandoning the partisan and gravely damaging measures that are being forced through this Parliament, that confidence in the pound can ever again be restored?

Mr. Healey: Neither I nor any other Minister—nor indeed anybody on the Opposition Front Bench—can accept responsibility for an irresponsible newspaper article or for the market's decision to pay more attention to that article than to unequivocal denials from those whose views it purports to describe. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that a Conservative Government of which he was a member were equally vlunerable to that type of article in a newspaper.
On the question of speeding up the visit of the IMF staff, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, if he reads Mr. Dale's statement, that the Fund does not wish to consider the prospects of the British economy and the terms under which a borrowing might be made until it has an opportunity to consider forecasts for prospects over the next 18 months which are not currently available. I have made it clear on many occasions that this was the view of the Fund and


that this has determined the programme of discussions with the Fund.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I have made it clear repeatedly—and I did so in my Mansion House speech last Thursday—that I believe that our strategy is the right one and that the Government are moving in the right direction. My view has been endorsed in the last week by leading members of the Governments who are likely to contribute to the standby, particularly by Mr. Simon and Mr. Greenspan of the United States, and by Chancellor Schmidt and Dr. Emminger of West Germany. The whole country would benefit if the Opposition Front Bench could sometimes be as optimistic in their views about the future of the United Kingdom economy as are our friends abroad.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement this afternoon demonstrates a stupefying complacency? Does he really believe that one newspaper article could knock this amount off sterling in one weekend? Is he not aware that before last Friday the forward market was already forecasting a rate below $1·50 in a year's time. If The Sunday Times had not been published this Sunday, the view of Professor Friedman, the Nobel prize winner, would have undermined the rate of sterling by as much as The Sunday Times has done.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is no less an expert on stupefaction than is the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) on anaesthesia, but he should know, because I understand that he studies these things, that the forward discount is very much less a reflection of what the market thinks the spot rate will be at the relevant time than a measure of the cost of borrowing sterling. If he has watched the movement of the forward discount over recent months, he will be able to verify that that is the case.

Mr. Jay: Would it not be more reputable if the British Press, the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) refrained from making statements which they must know will do the utmost harm to their own country?

Sir John Hall: Does not the Chancellor agree that this dramatic fall in sterling today does not reflect the effect of one newspaper article but, instead, shows the lack of confidence among our overseas depositors in a number of countries in any intention by our Government to take action to get our country on its feet?

Mr. Healey: I cannot agree with that statement, and if the hon. Gentleman watches the movement of the exchange markets he will know that his statement is untenable. There is no question whatever—and he can consult his friends who are dealers—that the sole cause of the fall today was yesterday's article in The Sunday Times.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is an absolute outrage that our manufacturers should continue to be blackmailed and imperilled by the antics of speculators based in London who can undermine British exporting effort to such an extent that the pound is now grotesquely undervalued? Will he now say that the time has come when we should take away from the speculators the chance of dealing in that way, that the Government will set the exchange rate and will adopt positive policies to bring our external trade into balance, thus doing away with the vulnerability which continues to exist and to weaken the Labour Government?

Mr. Healey: I very much agree that it is the Government's duty to adopt a policy to bring our external trade into balance. I hope that the Government will have the support of all my hon. Friends in any measures that are necessary for that purpose. My hon. Friend must accept that speculation against sterling as properly defined is not possible by people based, as he suggested, in this country. The element of pressure that can be exerted on sterling and by those based in this country is associated largely with what are termed leads and lags. The action taken by the Government in the monetary field a fortnight ago in operating a credit squeeze has already had some effect in discouraging that kind of pressure by United Kingdom residents.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the Chancellor deny that he and the Prime Minister know perfectly well that in the national interest it is necessary urgently to take further


measures to restore international confidence in sterling, and that they are delaying doing so only for fear of splitting the Parliamentary Labour Party?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member was responsible the other day for making a statement about the terms which, according to him, the IMF would press upon this country. Interestingly that statement was totally at variance with the report in The Sunday Times yesterday. The Government have shown on many occasions that they are prepared to take whatever measures are required—we proved that again a fortnight ago—to keep the economy on course and to see that we reach our goal in time. It would be quite improper and unwise for us to act before, like the IMF, we have the chance for mature consideration of the prospects for the next 18 months.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the public, perhaps most, and perhaps many Members of this House are utterly bewildered that we should have a situation in which, as a result of an article in a newspaper or a speech by Mr. McGahey, or some other unimportant people, sterling can drop in price, forcing the Treasury to borrow vast sums of money from abroad and getting us further into debt? Is there no way in which such speculation or manipulation can be suspended? Is there nothing that the IMF can do collectively to stop what appears to most of us to be an appalling and disastrous story? Is there no answer and is it just a question of going down and down? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that anyone with any common sense knows that if the Conservative Party had got into power there probably would not be a pound at all?

Mr. Healey: All experience in this country when the Tory Party was last in power suggests that my right hon. Friend's final words represent no less than the truth. As for the vulnerability of sterling to articles in newspapers, the House must recognise that at a time when the IMF mission is about to visit London and when sterling is already under pressure an article in what was regarded as a responsible newspaper stating unequivocally that the United States Government and the IMF staff have colluded to insist on the depreciation

of sterling by another 15 points is bound in any situation to have the most damaging effects on the rate. This point was made by Mr. Simon in his statement yesterday. I am glad to see that at least one Tory Member—the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)—regards the behaviour of the newspaper as requiring further consideration.
My right hon. Friend will also recognise that the currency will remain vulnerable, like the franc and other currencies whose value has fallen in recent months, as long as our inflation rate is higher than that of our major competitors and as long as our economy has not yet recovered from the disastrous imbalance which we inherited two-and-a-half years ago.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Chancellor ever ask himself why it is that these recurrent and repetitive statements of his about the value of the pound do not have any effect? Could it not be because all that he has done and all that he proposes to do is to borrow enormous sums of money from one set of foreign bankers to finance speculation against the currency by another set?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman has given a comical description of what he thinks is happening with currency borrowed by this country. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Government's economic policies have been warmly endorsed recently by the United States President and the Federal German Chancellor. I put it to right hon. and hon. Tory Members that they do themselves no good with British opinion in taking pleasure in fouling their nests.

Mr. Heffer: While, up to now, I have never accepted the theory of politics based upon conspiracy, in view of the circumstances I am increasingly becoming convinced that the theory of politics based upon conspiracy is actually taking place—

Mr. Sandelson: Mr. Sandelson rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are now convinced that there is a conspiracy on the Tory Benches and among certain Press barons to try to force the Government out and that that is the whole design


behind the present policy which we are facing? Is it not clear that we have to ignore the nonsensical rubbish that we are getting from people such as Milton Friedman, who advised the Chilean junta on how to deal with its economy and which now has tripled its unemployment and inflation rates—all as a result of the rubbish we have been hearing from Tory Members and people such as Milton Friedman?

Mr. Healey: Without endorsing my hon. Friend's views about a conspiracy, I must say that the way in which many, but not all, right hon. and hon. Members on the Tory Benches have reacted to recent difficulties faced by the whole country which—as the recent policy pamphlet of the Conservative Party reminded us—long pre-date the accession to power of the present Administration two-and-a-half years ago shows their impatience to derive petty party political advantage from the nation's troubled economy. That is not a basis on which right hon. and hon. Members can seek popular support. They will certainly, as has been demonstrated, unite this party against them.

Mr. Viggers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have asked the Press Council to investigate the story in The Sunday Times so that in due course the truth may be known? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that he must know, as the world knows, that he cannot continue with his present policies, and that as long as he refuses to admit this, the pound can never be safe?

Mr. Healey: I have paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman's action. Whether the story was in detail well judged is not for me to say. The Press Council will take its view. I am glad to applaud the courage and patriotism of one Tory Back Bencher in respect of the behaviour of this newspaper. He, at least, felt that it was deserving of some consideration by those whose responsibility it is to ensure a responsible Press.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not clear that the only new event of significance over the weekend was this one Press article? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend not agree that this journalist has been thoroughly unpatriotic? Can he

give some measure of the damage done to the country by this journalist?

Mr. Healey: I do not think it fair to concentrate all recrimination on this individual journalist, although I must say that I was disturbed, listening to him broadcast on the "World at One" programme today, to discover that he thought that it would be a good thing if the rate fell and suggested that the consequences of his action were not unwelcome to him.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the Chancellor aware that many people will accept that The Sunday Times article was both inaccurate and irresponsible? But is he also aware that it is extremely difficult for financial markets to obey his injunction to pay more attention to official denials when these have been so misleading in the past, like the denial of the approach to the IMF up to the moment that it happened? Is he aware that the fall of sterling this morning is a comment not just upon his wrong policy but, I am afraid, upon his personal lack of credibility?

Mr. Healey: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point. I was asked in an interview by Mr. Peter Jay some weeks ago whether the Government had decided to apply for further standby credit from the Fund. I said that the Government had not so decided. Nor did they decide until after the run on sterling which started a few days later. There was no intent to mislead nor was there any misleading of anyone in the statement I then made. The hon. Gentleman must, if he reflects on the situation, recognise that that is the case.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the causes of the constant pressure on sterling is the steady drain on the sterling balances? Has he had any discussions with our partners in the EEC, or the IMF or any other Governments about funding the balances, or does he propose to have any such discussions?

Mr. Healey: This is a matter of great concern to the Government, and we have considered it along with some of our friends. But I think that the general—indeed, unanimous—view is that the basis on which any action should be taken on it would be the successful application by the United Kingdom for a further


standby by the IMF, and that is where the matter for the time being must rest.

Mr. Lawson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this House is sick and tired of hearing him blame everyone but himself—including the Press and the Opposition? [Interruption.] Is it not time for him to be man enough to take the blame himself for the total failure of his policies and to resign?

Mr. Healey: I have the impression from the reaction of my right hon. and hon. Friends that at least this side of the House is pretty sick and tired of the hon. Member.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall allow two more questions on this matter.

Mr. English: Has my right hon. Friend considered that the source of the story might be the people who have denied it? It also mentions the Federal Reserve Bank, and suggests that it regards the IMF loan as being one that could be granted without any tight conditions at all. Has my right hon. Friend considered that it might have been possible that that was not unconnected with the story?

Mr. Healey: I think that I can regard myself as the personal friend of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank as well as of Dr. Witterveen and of Mr. Simon. I cannot speculate on the origins of the report in The Sunday Times, except to say that I would be flabbergasted if the origin were the Federal Reserve Bank.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident that his policies are on the right course, and attributes the fall in the value of sterling solely to the newspaper story, can we imagine that he expects it to recover? If not, what is the effect of this loss of 6 cents likely to be on both a rise in unemployment and a rise in the retail price index?

Mr. Healey: If this fall were maintained—it was just over 5 cents when I came to the House—it would lead to an increase in the retail price index over the next six months of well under 1 per cent. But, like, I think, the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the fall will not be maintained.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: To save time I will put the Question on the four motions relating to Statutory Instruments together.

Ordered,
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1976, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Graham.]

STANDING ORDER No. 9

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not able to give you notice before the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, but I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has left it too late. We have started Public Business. We have moved on past the motions relating to the Statutory Instruments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's Sitting, proceedings on any Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered as soon as a member of the Government shall have signified his intention to move, That this House do now adjourn, for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion.—[Mr. Graham.]

3.55 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that the motion is debatable?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Beith: The House is put in something of a mystery by the terms of the


motion. It seems to set a rather unusual precedent. My recent experience of Private Business, which has been greater than usual in the past few weeks, has led me to suppose that the Chairman of Ways and Means has usually put it down for between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and has been most anxious that it should not be relegated to the distant hours of the night, as we have recently had some Government business so relegated.
It would be helpful if we could know whether the Chairman of Ways and Means takes, or is entitled to take, any view as to the propriety of this motion, or is formally neutral. The House should also consider whether it is right that Private Business should be shunted by the Government to a position after a whole series of other matters. I speak as one with no direct or immediate interest in the item of Private Business being considered tonight, but I know that there are other hon. Members who may wish to comment on it.
It is extraordinary that we should seek to change long-established procedure for Private Business and make a practice of interposing it immediately before the Adjournment debate. If the Chairman of Ways and Means is able to give his view, I am sure that the House will welcome it. If he is not, the House should resist the motion rather than be pushed into so drastic a change without having the opportunity to consider it at length.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Unlike the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I can hardly say that I have no interest in the topic concerned. At 2.30 p.m. when, puzzled, I raised this with you, Mr. Speaker, you said that you, too, had been puzzled. Therefore, I put a question either to you or to the Chairman of Ways and Means. On what occasion has there been a precedent for shifting Private Business as put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means from 7 o'clock? Is this a precedent?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it has been done before and that this motion is not a precedent.

Mr. John Peyton: Would you clear up one small point, Mr. Speaker?

Have those who have already addressed the House done so not on a point of order but on the motion? Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct—except that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did, I think, raise a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was referring to the point of order that I raised with you at 2.30 p.m., when it had to be a point of order. Perhaps one other question should be asked. Should there not be an explanation from the Government why they have done this?

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I want to add my voice of protest against the motion. It seems an extraordinary procedure that, at any time from now on when any member of the Government rises in his place and signifies his intention to move, "That this House do now adjourn", all the business comes to an end and suddenly, precipitately, we are embarking upon a Private Bill. That is an impossible situation for hon. Members. It might be that—not myself—some hon. Members were taking a cup of tea and would miss their cue because some junior Whip, sitting at the end of the Treasury Bench, had risen in his place and moved that the House should adjourn.
Surely it is customary to give notice of the time at which certain business is likely to be brought forward. I know that we are accustomed in this House to awaiting the end of one piece of business before we commence another, but it is always possible to ascertain whether a piece of business is drawing to a close. In this instance, however, it is possible that a Minister could rise in the middle of an hon. Member's speech in a preceding bit of business, move the Adjournment and put the motion on the Private Bill, and the whole thing would be over because there would be no one present who was expecting that to happen.
This cannot be a procedure which the House would wish to adopt. I am sure that the House would like to stick to its established procedure of taking Private Bills between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock. Even if it were decided by the House to take this Private Bill at a separate time, the procedure suggested in the motion seems to me to be utterly unacceptable.


It seems to me to be a sort of confidence trick procedure.
If the House were to agree to the motion this afternoon, it might find that it had created a precedent. It might well find that this Government—unrepresentative, unloved, hard-pressed for time and in chaos on its legislative programme—could well begin to adopt this new procedure and put similar motions on the Order Paper in connection with any piece of legislation that they happen to want to get through.
What would there be to stop the Government, after this, in the case of, for example, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, suddenly getting one Minister to pop up in the middle of Question Time or one Friday afternoon in order to say "I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn", and then for another Minister to say, "I beg to move, That the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill be now read the Third time". He could then sit down and expect to get his business motion through in that way.
This is no way in which to conduct a Parliament. It is necessary to have an orderly agenda, and to be clear which business succeeds which business and at what time certain business will be embarked upon. I strongly urge the House to throw out the motion and to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means to revert to the normal procedure of giving notice of the precise time at which Private Bills will be entered into, so that hon. Members can be certain of being present on matters which interest them.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: On the whole, on this matter I am more kindly disposed than my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has just spoken. I would not wish to see anything too precipitate done in regard to the motion in the name of the Prime Minister, although I think it would be very nice indeed—

Mr. John Pardoe: Conspiracy.

Mr. Peyton: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) that no such thing—

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I did not say it.

Mr. Peyton: I might have known that the remark came from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who sits behind my hon. Friend, and from whom it comes far more in character—

Mr. Pardoe: Because it is true.

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that the Home Secretary should have had to be called on at rather short notice to be responsible for the appalling mess in which the Government's programme now stands. On a day when he could have looked forward to relative calm and peace, it is unfortunate that this little thing should have blown up, but no doubt we shall have from him a very lucid and clear explanation of the Government's intention. After all, we must take it that exceptionally the Government have moments of clarity and lucidity, and I am sure that we shall want to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.
As I understand it, there are three important Scottish measures on the Order Paper this afternoon. Most exceptionally for these days, they are not obnoxious. They are not even exceptionable. We wish them no ill. But why suddenly must this rather novel procedure be put forward? Why should the Private Business, which is of some importance and of very great interest to many people, suddenly be subordinated to some hour of which no one can be certain? Once again, one of the very small privileges that we have in this House is being eroded and taken away. There are not very many left.
Then there is the question of the Prayers, on which the right hon. Gentleman would do well to offer us his observations, because praying in this House—and, Heaven knows, we have cause for praying—is now becoming a very hazardous occupation. Prayers very seldom receive the attention which they deserve—and this at a time when delegated legislation is running riot.
I could go on longer, if I felt it were necessary, in order to give the Home Secretary a better chance to digest the wisdom which is being poured into his ears by the Patronage Secretary. But as I gather that that passage is now over,


I will very helpfully sit down, at the same time asking the right hon. Gentleman to be kind enough to acquaint the House with exactly what is intended here. I hope that he will tell us at what hour we can have a reasonable expectation that the Private Business will be reached, and what is to happen to the Prayers.

4.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Responding to the right hon. Gentleman's mood—calm and peace is my watchword, and that is the way in which I hope I shall continue—the Prayers will come first, at the request, as I understood it, of the Opposition, and the business that we are talking about will be at the end. I have made quick inquiries, because, frankly, this matter was new to me. This is not an unprecedented way of proceeding. It is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. There is Scottish business. There are agreed measures in front of us, and as I understand it, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was agreeable to the procedure.

Mr. Dalyell: I bet he was.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: And the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is important in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] My advice is that we should continue in the way in which the order is written, and I hope that the House will agree.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If we do not get to Scottish sex by 10 o'clock, do we have to drop it? [Interruption.] There are, in fact, three Scottish Bills to come before the House, dealing with Scottish teachers, then valuation, and then Scottish sex. If we do not finish these three Bills by 10 o'clock, when the Prayers come on, will the Government drop the Bills?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand that Scottish sex is a consolidation measure.

Mr. George Younger: May I ask for clarification of one very important remark that the Home Secretary, with respect, must have made in error? Without expressing any view either way on the Private Business that is to come up tonight, he would surely be quite wrong in saying that the important thing is whether one side of the argument found

it convenient to consider it tonight. Both sides have an equal right to be heard, and without pronouncing either way I hope that he will make that clear.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: That is what I meant. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is in charge of the Bill and is agreeable to this course. Both sides of the argument can be put.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had already spoken on this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: By leave of the House—

Mr. Speaker: I am on my feet. We cannot have two of us on our feet at the same time. The hon. Member may speak by leave of the House—if the House gives it.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my hon. Friend the Home Secretary why the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) should be singled out as being important in this matter? I think there is quite a serious issue here. Is the hon. Member important by virtue of having taken a strong view as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, or is it that he is important in his other capacity, wearing his other hat, as a Front Bench spokesman on energy? If it is as a Front Bench spokesman that he has taken this view, then, because of the traditions of the House, I should have to accept that of course he has a special place and is important in this matter. But I hope that he is not specially important because he takes a very strong view on a particular issue in the controversy that is before us. I ask the Home Secretary, therefore, precisely why the hon. Member is specially important above all the rest of us.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is important—if that is the way in which one needs to put it—because this measure, and what will result from it, arises in his constituency. It is not, therefore, that he is more important as far as this House is concerned but because we consider it right that this matter should arise. What is before the House is not unprecedented, and the view of the Chairman of Ways


and Means and the other points that I made must be taken into account.

Mr. Peyton: With the leave of the House, may I ask the Home Secretary one very simple question? Will he give an undertaking that he will not allow this Private Business to come on in the small hours of the morning? If it cannot be reached by a reasonable hour, will he undertake that it may be put over to another day?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I think that the best course is to see how we go. I am seized of the point.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I am not rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is worth pointing out that there is £36 million of taxpayers' money going into what I consider to be a bucket-shop company under this Bill, and the Government have constantly refused to take a view and to pronounce on this. In fact, if the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is in charge of the Bill, it should be stressed that he has not so far answered any questions on the matters raised by those of us who are concerned about the Bill.
I treat this motion with suspicion, if only on the ground raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), that at any point between now and the end of today's sitting the motion can be moved to adjourn and, if hon. Members are not in their places—and I have in mind especially the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), who rose before you adjourned the debate last Thursday—the business can go through.
On the other hand—and I make no bones about this—if the business comes on in the early hours of the morning, whatever the Government may say about their view, I shall be here, together with a number of my hon. Friends, and the chances are that the payroll vote will not be here. I know that there is a free vote on this Bill. However, the payroll vote, on free votes, tends to go into the Government Lobby. So I shall not raise too many complaints about it. However, I am very unhappy about a procedure whereby a matter of this kind can be raised without notice at any time, even

before the completion of business which appears on the Order Paper.
It may be said that it is not thought necessary to proceed with the Prayers on the Statutory Instruments on sports grounds. It may be felt that they could be done away with, in which case a Whip could move, "That this House do now adjourn," and, bingo, the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill would go through.
I do not think that this is a satisfactory procedure. This is a Back Benchers matter. It is not a Government matter, nor an Opposition Front Bench matter. You, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of the interests of Back Benchers, will, we hope, pronounce on this matter or invite the Chairman of Ways and Means to do so.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: First, I must thank the Home Secretary for elevating me to a position to which I have not aspired.
I speak as a Back Bencher and not as a Front Bench spokesman on energy matters. At the beginning of the debate on this subject on Second Reading, the Opposition indicated that they would follow precedent and not oppose this Private Business. I am acting entirely as a Back Bencher, therefore.
The reason why I have taken an active interest in this matter is that it very much affects my constituency. In view of several statements made earlier today, I should have thought that my right hon. and hon. Friends would welcome the thought of £l50 million worth of private investment at this time—

Mr. Dalyell: Raised in London.

Mr. Gray: The fact that it will also attract Government aid is incidental—

Mr. Dalyell: Raised in London.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has been making remarks from a sedentary position for days now. But I am sure that he will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate later.
I support this motion because, as I see it, there is a consortium of personalities in the House prepared to go to nearly any length to ensure that my constituency does not have this investment. If


the Government think that this is a reasonable way to proceed, I am prepared to accept their ruling on the matter.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I have no wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but I agree with every word that he said. This matter is one of very great importance to this House.
It is important for three reasons. First, there is £36 million at stake. A sum of £36 million has a certain magical ring in this context. The Government are borrowing £35 million a day, and £36 million expenditure on this proposed Bill is just £1 million more than the Government are borrowing each day—

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is not in the Bill.

Mr. Gow: But that is what we are discussing—the expenditure of £36 million.

Mr. Speaker: No. What we are discussing is the order in which that matter shall be discussed.

Mr. Gow: I am endeavouring to show that the order in which we debate these matters is related to the importance of the matters which we are discussing.

Mr. Ridley: Would not it be better if we discussed borrowing £36 million before we discuss spending it? Is not that really the way in which we should do business?

Mr. Gow: I do not think that I should be diverted, even by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
The second important point is whether we should leave it to a member of the Government to decide at what time and at what stage the business of the House is debated.
If we allow a member of the Government—and it would be interesting to have a definition—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It does not say that.

Mr. Gow: It says "a member of the Government". It is all very well for the

acting Leader of the House to say that it does not. It says "a member of the Government", and the payroll vote in this House is large enough already without giving right hon. and hon. Members who happen to be members of the Government further powers to decide what shall be the timetable of the business of the House.
Finally, if we agree to this motion we shall be creating a very dangerous precedent. We shall be granting further powers to the Executive and eroding still further the rights of Back Benchers.
I agree, therefore, with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect our rights, and I must give notice that, very emphatically, some of my hon. Friends and I will divide the House on this subject.

Mr. Hector Monro: Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), since two hon. Gentlemen have referred to it, let me make it clear that I cannot intervene on this matter. It is a motion on the Order Paper, and the House must decide for itself whether it approves of the motion.

Mr. Monro: I rise on that very point. We want the acting Leader of the House to give us a timetable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), I want to see this Private Business proceed and proceed favourably. However, if my Prayer on the safety of sports grounds is shut out by Scottish sex, can I get it later this week, or what plans has the Home Secretary for leaving it on the Order Paper?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have an interest in the Prayers on sports grounds. I have made my view clear. I believe that this is the correct way to proceed, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will now come to a decision on the motion.

Mr. Beith: Mr. Beith rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has addressed the House already.

Mr. Beith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary seemed to suggest that in some way the Chairman


of Ways and Means was responsible for the motion. Is it possible for you, Sir, to indicate that what appears on the Order Paper is a Government motion and not one which emanates from the Chair, which appears to be the substance of your ruling?

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered my question. Will he safeguard the Prayers?

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My answer to that is, again, "Yes".

Mr. Speaker: The answer to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is that, of course, this is a Government motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 34.

Division No. 340.]
AYES
4.20 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Graham, Ted
Perry, Ernest


Allaun, Frank
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Radice, Giles


Anderson, Donald
Gray, Hamish
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Archer, Peter
Grocott, Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hardy, Peter
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Atkinson, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Rooker, J. W.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)
Roper, John


Bates, Alf
Heffer, Eric S.
Rose, Paul B.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ryman, John


Bishop, E. S.
Hunter, Adam
Sandelson, Neville


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Sedgemore, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Buchanan, Richard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Silverman, Julius


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Small, William


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Spearing, Nigel


Canavan, Dennis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stallard, A. W.


Cartwright, John
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Clemitson, Ivor
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stoddart, David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Lamborn, Harry
Strang, Gavin


Cohen, Stanley
Lamond, James
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Corbett, Robin
Litterick, Tom
Thompson, George


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
MacCormick, Iain
Tinn, James


Crawford, Douglas
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McElhone, Frank
Tuck, Raphael


Cryer, Bob
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Urwin, T. W.


Davidson, Arthur
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watt, Hamish


Deakins, Eric
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dempsey, James
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, James (Pollok)


Doig, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitehead, Phillip


Dormand, J. D.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Whitlock, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Edge, Geoff
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


English, Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Moonman, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Moyle, Roland
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Faulds, Andrew
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Orbach, Maurice
Woodall, Alec


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ovenden, John



Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David
Park, George
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Gould, Bryan
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. John Ellis




NOES


Alison, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Penhaligon, David


Arnold, Tom
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rest, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Buck, Antony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Skinner, Dennis


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Moate, Roger
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eyre, Reginald
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John
Mr. Nicholas Ridley

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, proceedings on any Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means shall, instead of being considered at that hour, be considered as soon as a member of the Government shall have signified his intention to move, That this House do now adjourn, for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill, by providing different arrangements for the retirement of teachers, is to make jobs available for newly qualified teachers who otherwise would be unemployed. The Bill is therefore part of the Government's effort to reduce teacher unemployment. I shall explain the clauses of the Bill in more detail later.
The main effect of the Bill will be first to reduce the upper age of retirement of unpromoted teachers from 70 to 65 and, secondly, to withdraw the discretion at present in the hands of employers under the 1969 Act to continue to employ a promoted teacher for more than three months after he has passed the age of 65. The Bill reduces the length of time for which such a teacher can be employed to no more than three months. Thirdly, the Bill ensures that contracts offered to teachers after they have passed their 65th birthday are not for more than one year at a time.
It is difficult to obtain precise figures for the number of teachers likely to be affected by the Bill. Apart from anything else, we are dealing with a commencing date of 1st January 1977, and a certain number of teachers will retire before then. Secondly, we normally take a survey of this sort only in September and the September 1976 survey is not yet available. Thirdly, there is a particular difficulty this year, because, in anticipation of the Bill, there may have been a number of retirements of teachers who would otherwise have stayed on beyond 1st January. However, I believe that on 1st January about 400 teachers in Scottish schools will be affected by the Bill in one way or another. That is the extent to which, by making room in the schools, we could be making jobs available for newly qualified teachers who at present find it difficult to obtain jobs.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those 400 jobs will be in departments where there is a shortage of teachers for the subjects concerned?

Mr. Millan: I cannot, but I was going to say that the exact numbers likely to be asked to retire will depend on how the local authorities use the discretionary powers given by the Bill in regard to unpromoted teachers. We are removing from the unpromoted teacher the discretion about his retirement date up to the age of 70 and putting it in the hands of the local authority. 'That seems to us essential in the present teacher employment situation. The background to the Bill is the concern that was felt in the summer, and is still felt, about teacher unemployment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart) rose—

Mr. Millan: It would help if I could explain some of the background and the provisions of the Bill before giving way. I am always willing to give way, but I hope that my doing so will not unnecessarily lengthen my speech.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State referred to the September 1976 survey. It was to the September 1975 survey that Lord Kirkhill referred in the other place. Will the September 1976 figures be available before the Committee stage?

Mr. Millan: I hope that it goes without saying that I shall make available all the figures that I can. As I have already explained, we cannot be precise, because even now some teachers may voluntarily retire before the end of the year. Without the Bill about 500 teachers might have been involved. The Bill and other measures have probably reduced that number to about 400. The numbers going will depend on how the authorities exercise their discretion.
I was saying that the background to the Bill was our concern about the extent of teacher unemployment. In the summer it was estimated that about 2,000 newly-qualified teachers might not obtain teaching jobs at the beginning of the current session. The latest figures, those for September, show 625 teachers registered as unemployed in Scotland. That is 625 too many, but the number is not

nearly as big as some of us once feared. It compares with 143 in September 1975. There has always been a small number of teachers on the unemployed register.
Although there has been a considerable increase in teacher unemployment, it has been affected by the fact that about 1,000 teachers are now employed in jobs under the Job Creation Programme, which has made a tremendous difference. However, those jobs are short term. We must take that into account as, part of the background to the Bill and to the figures for entry to colleges next year, about which I shall be issuing a consultative document—I hope within the next few weeks, but certainly before the end of the year.
I am anxious to do everything open to me to reduce teacher unemployment, but I cannot do it by increasing the rate support grant or asking education authorities to employ more teachers than are needed generally to meet the staffing standards which they agreed with me last year. Those standards have already given us a better position in the schools than we have ever had. In September 1975 staffing ratios were 22·4 to 1 for the primary schools and 15·1 to 1 for the secondary schools, considerable improvements on the 1974 figures of 23·4 and 15·7 respectively. Incidentally, the September 1975 ratios were much better than the corresponding English ratios in January this year. It is difficult to make exact comparisons, but the respective English figures were 23·6 and 17—substantially higher.
In the current session I have had no part-time education reported to me. Those of us who come from the Strathclyde Region will be aware of what a considerable improvement that is. In confirmation of the fact that our staffing is better than it has ever been, I was interested to see a report in last Thursday's Glasgow Herald of a statement by the Deputy Director of Education for the Strathclyde Region. He said that the region, which is the one that has had the most intractable teacher shortages, had a full complement of primary teachers and a shortage of fewer than 20 in secondary schools in the current session.
That small shortage is a reflection of the fact that there are still particular subjects for which we should like to have more teachers available in the schools.


But overall we have a better staffing position in the schools than ever, despite the fact that we have had to ask authorities not to go beyond teaching standards which we agreed with them last year.
Against that background, it is important to do everything we can to take care of the young teacher who entered training at a time when there was a teacher shortage and now finds, at the end of his training, that there is a changed recruitment position. That is the reason for this modest Bill.
The existing legislation on the retirement of teachers is contained in Section 16 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1969, under which a promoted teacher must normally retire at 65—though he can be offered re-employment in an unpromoted post—and a non-promoted teacher must retire at 70. In both these cases the retirement ages apply
unless the employer otherwise determines",
so that an employer may keep people on after the specified retirement age. We all know that until very recently there have been examples of teachers working on even beyond 70 years of age.
The provision in the 1969 Act was perfectly understandable—I remember taking the Act through, and we did it with the co-operation of the teachers' associations—at a time of teacher shortage, but it is no longer relevant to a time of teacher surplus. In any case, most teachers retire before they reach the age of 65. In 1975, for example, 90 per cent. of all teachers who retired were aged 65 or under. Under the teachers' superannuation scheme, a teacher may choose to retire at or after the age of 60 and draw his accumulated pension benefits immediately. The Bill does not affect that. It simply deals with the situation post-65.
In considering the Bill, and, I hope, in passing it, the House will in no way be criticising teachers who have chosen to stay on in the past beyond the age of 65. In many circumstances, without their help schools would have found considerable difficulty in continuing. I wish to put that on record. We are simply taking account of the present changing situation.
I had consultations on the proposals in the Bill in June this year with both the

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the teachers' associations. COSLA said then, and this is its current view, that it is very much in favour of the Bill but wishes to make clear that in individual cases when a teacher may ask to be kept on beyond age 65 for reasons which he considers important to him—perhaps pension circumstances—it will look at such cases sympathetically. I have no reason to doubt that it will do so. Directors of education are well aware of the service which many over-65s have given in our schools, and I do not think that they will approach such individual cases in any unsympathetic way.
I met the three main teachers' associations in June this year. There were not then any serious objections raised to what the Government were proposing, although there were reservations expressed quite strongly by one of the teachers' associations, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association. The other two associations did not raise any serious objections, as the Educational Institute of Scotland reported in its publication EIS News. I think that they took the view that, at a time when we have many qualified teachers unable to find work, this was a modest step which ought to be taken by the Government and be supported by the teachers' associations.
Since then, the EIS and the SSA—if I may give it its old name—have confirmed that they support the Bill. The SSTA has criticised it on the ground that there could be potential hardship for individual teachers with a relatively short period of service who wished to go on beyond the age of 65 so that they could earn a better pension.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: On the front page of The Times Educational Supplement of 10th September 1976 the General Secretary of the EIS was reported as saying, in one of his forays into the country, that the EIS did not oppose the Bill in principle but the local associations would have to argue with their local authorities individual cases of hardship which arose. Therefore, it is not wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend seemed to suggest.

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I tried to convey more than that. My hon.


Friend has simply confirmed what I said, that the EIS supports the Bill in principle, and today we are discussing the principle of the Bill. I believe that the point made by the SSTA relates to circumstances in individual cases which can be dealt with between a teacher, or a teacher and his association, on the one hand, and the local education authority, on the other. I have heard nothing from the education authorities to lead me to believe that individual cases of difficulty cannot be solved in a sympathetic way at local level.
To some extent—I admit this frankly, and the House has to make up its mind about it—we are inevitably by the Bill setting aside the interests of people over 65 in the interests of younger members of the profession. I believe that to be sensible at this time. We are not making it compulsory that everybody shall go at 65. We are giving the discretion to the authority rather than to the individual teacher, but, inevitably, we are setting aside some interests of older teachers in the interests of younger members of the profession. I repeat that I believe that to be sensible.

Mrs. Bargaret Bain: Many of the older teachers now being asked to retire were themselves at one stage unemployed young teachers during the 1930s. Will special consideration be given to them since both ends of their careers have been affected by Government policy?

Mr. Millan: Again, I am sure that individual education authorities will take all these circumstances into account. I think that the only substantial point of difficulty is the question of pensions, where, in an individual case, a teacher has a certain pension expectation and that expectation becomes rather less than the normal because he or she does not have the full length of service. I am sure that these cases can be dealt with by the individual authority.
I come now to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 gives us the new substituted Section 16, removing Section 16 of the 1969 Act. The main effect of subsection (1) is to reduce the age of retirement for an unpromoted teacher from 70 to 65. The new retiring age will come into effect on 1st January 1977 and will affect teachers already 65 or becoming 65 after that date.
The new subsection (2) introduces an element of flexibility which can meet the needs of individual teachers and education authorities. Paragraph (a) enables an employer to re-employ a retired teacher but only in an unpromoted post and on a year-to-year basis. This will enable teachers to be dealt with sympathetically by local education authorities. It will also take care of teachers who are teaching in shortage subjects in secondary schools.
Paragraph (b) allows an employer to, re-employ for up to three months a promoted teacher in the post from which he retired, again to give a certain element of flexibility and avoid an unnecessary retirement at a difficult time during the school session.
Subsection (3) defines a post of special responsibility. This is a promoted post above the basic grades. About 35 per cent. of the 60,000 teachers in Scottish schools and further education colleges occupy such posts.
Clause 2 is basically the citation clause and again includes the commencement date of 1st January 1977, which we have chosen as the earliest date on which the new provisions could reasonably come into force.
This is a modest Bill which has been generally welcomed as a useful contribution in a difficult situation of teacher surplus. This situation will have to be dealt with also in a more fundamental way by the proposals which I have already made for the 1976 entry, which are now operative, and the proposals which I shall be making in due course for entry to the colleges of education in 1977 and subsequently.
I took the action available to me in the current year to reduce entry considerably so that we did not have teachers taken into colleges without reasonable expectation of employment at the end of their training. I shall take whatever steps are necessary to achieve a similar objective in 1977 and subsequent years. That must be the main thrust of our policy in these difficult financial times when we cannot afford to keep improving the pupil-teacher ratio. We must get teacher supply and demand reasonably in balance.
The Bill represents a modest but useful contribution towards that end. It has been generally welcomed and I gather


from the Shadow Leader of the House that the Opposition wish it well. I commend the Bill to hon. Members.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is rather unusual to have a Bill of this importance presented at this stage of a Session. The Bill deprives individual teachers of rights which were available to them when they joined the profession. However, we accept that the circumstances of Scottish education are unusual and tragic and that, for the first time in decades, we have in Scotland a serious problem of teacher unemployment which seems almost certain to get worse.
In these circumstances it would be difficult for the Opposition to vote against the principle of a Bill which is at least aimed at providing more jobs for teachers. However, by the time the debate is finished the Secretary of State will be aware that many of us are unhappy about aspects of the Bill and that there are many questions for the Government to answer before we give the Bill a Second Reading.
There is no doubt that this is a panic Bill. I am in sympathy with the General Secretary of the SSTA, Mr. Docherty, who said in a circular to all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies that the proper retirement age for members of any profession should be a matter for objective study, based on considerations of the efficiency of the service and justice to those who have devoted themselves to the service. This Bill is based on no such considerations. It has been introduced simply because of the problem of teacher unemployment in Scotland.
Some people regard the Bill as a cosmetic measure, which will have no real effect. Others regard it as a rather nasty and spiteful Bill to deprive elderly teachers of rights that were promised to them when they entered or re-entered teaching.
There are a number of questions which I hope the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary will answer. What effect will the Bill have on the employment of teachers? Authority is being given to local education authorities to make up

their own minds on the employment of teachers over the age of 65. Presumably it would be possible for the Bill to have no effect if an authority decided to continue to employ all its teachers who are over 65.
The Secretary of State has indicated that he hopes that local authorities will use sympathetically and not harshly, their new powers to dismiss teachers over the age of 65. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to issue any guidance to local authorities about the criteria which they should bear in mind when using their new discretion? The hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) have pointed out the kind of people for whom we think there should be special consideration.
What will be the effect of the date of 1st January in the Bill in the light of changes in the Contracts of Employment Act, stemming from the Employment Protection Act? The latter Act has considerably affected the Contracts of Employment Act and has greatly extended the period of notice which must be given to teachers on dismissal.
Will the "one week for one year of service" provision apply to teachers over the age of 65 and, if so, will notice be given on 1st January or will this be one of the periods that might result in a teacher losing his job?
What assurances can the Secretary of State give us that the Bill will provide new jobs and ensure a reduction in teacher unemployment? There have been some horrifying reports in the Press and elsewhere recently about the prospect of a substantial number of teachers becoming unemployed because of the spending cuts that the Government have imposed on local authorities.
A report in the Scotsman on 21st August said that cuts in spending in Lothian could lead to a reduction in teaching staff of 700 if the council were to achieve a reduction of £9·5 million in its 1977–78 budget. There was also a, horrifying story on the front page of the Sunday Mail about secret discussions at a remote hotel in the West of Scotland where the policy resources committee of the Strathclyde Regional Council met to discuss the consequences of cuts demanded by the Government.
It is acutely embarrassing for Opposition Members to be so badly briefed on the discussions with in this authority, but the Strathclyde Council runs its affairs in such a way that only Labour councillors may be members of the policy resources committee. As a result, the substantial minority of Conservatives and Scottish nationalists in the West of Scotland have no knowledge of what goes on behind locked doors in flash hotels when Labour members of the policy resources committee decide who to sack in which departments.
Do the Government believe that the jobs that will be made available when older teachers are dismissed will be taken up? All the indications from reports of local authority discussions are that many councils will be faced with the prospect of dismissing teachers because of the cuts on which the Government are insisting.
Some of my colleagues feel bitter and resentful because, while local authorities are being exhorted by the Scottish Office to reduce the number of staff in key areas, the number of staff at the Scottish Office has increased by 800 since the Government came to power. I hope that Ministers will bear this fact in mind when discussing the problem of teacher unemployment.
May we have more information and an assurance that the Government have done their sums right in the calculations about recruitment and the intake of student teachers? Projections about the reduced number of pupils have been clear for about two years and I was sttaggered when, in October 1975, the Government increased the number of students going into the colleges by 11·6 per cent.
I know that the Secretary of State must be ashamed of his record in this respect. No doubt that is why he is pretending not to listen to me on this point. He knows that in October 1975 he deliberately increased the number of students entering colleges of education and that many of them are now unemployed. It is because the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake that we now have this panic reaction, with the unfortunate effect that many youngsters who were hoping to take up teaching as a profession will not be able to do

so. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us more information and a reassurance that he has got his sums right.
I hope that in reply the Under-Secretary of State will give us more information on the question of consultation. The Secretary of State said that, as always, he consulted the teachers' associations involved. That is not the information that has been given to us by at least one of the teachers' associations. Mr. Docherty, of the SSTA, with whom I had a meeting last week, said that on 6th July the teachers' associations received the outline proposals from the Government and were told that submissions on those proposals had to be at the Scottish Office by 12th July, so that the Secretary of State could give them the careful consideration that he assures us he always gives to the teachers' associations' recommendations.
Those submissions were in by 12th July, but the Secretary of State was able to give them his careful consideration very speedily, because the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 13th July—24 hours after the date set for the submission of representations. Does the Secretary of State consider that fair and reasonable? Is it not insulting the teachers' associations to tell them to hand in their submissions by 12th July and then to present the Bill in the House of Lords on 13th July? I consider that to be a most shameful example of lack of consultation and almost an insult to the teachers' associations.
I see that the Secretary of State is carrying on another important conversation. Again, he must be feeling very guilty, as he should be. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who should be in another place, as he knows, will be interested in protecting workers and their rights.
Since people have come back to the teaching profession at the request of the Government and on the assurance that they would be able to go on working until the age of 70 and thereby improve their pension entitlement, is the Secretary of State entirely happy that he is supporting a Bill that will deprive them of those rights? Does he not think that there might be a case for compensation for those whose rights are being taken away in that way?
We are not talking about peanuts or pennies; the amounts involved are considerable. A teacher with 15 years' service at the age of 65 now has a salary of £3,354. He would be entitled to retire with a pension entitlement of fifteen-eightieths of his current salary. If we do not oppose the Bill and he is allowed to go on working for another five years, his salary would increase to £4,149 and he would be entitled to twenty-eightieths on retirement at 70 years of age. That makes a difference of about £8 a week, according to my calculations. That is the kind of money that we are talking about.
We are talking about a teacher being deprived of the right to work for five years and losing a pension entitlement of about £8 a week. That is a considerable change. Will the Under-Secretary indicate whether he thinks that compensation is justified in such a situation? I am sure that if this happened to dockers, miners, or anyone else, there would be loud protests from the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and others about the need for compensation for those who were being deprived of employment through legislation. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that question and indicate whether a move can be made in that direction.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me who assured those persons that they would be employed until they were 70 years of age?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under present conditions of employment, teachers are entitled to be employed until they reach 70 years of age. They have the right now to stay on, but not in a promoted post. This Bill changes the situation. It provides that teachers will have that right only if the local authority wishes them to have it. Hon. Members should be aware of what is going on. Having got that information, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt take an even greater interest than he was taking before I mentioned that point. As I said, it makes a big difference. It can mean a difference of five years' employment and £8 per week in pension. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will pay

special attention to the rights of employment.
I should like the Under-Secretary of State to give a better explanation than was given by Lord Kirkhill, in another place, why the date of 1st January was selected? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that if a teacher retires at the end of a term, the normal practice is for him to be paid until the end of the holiday period after his retirement. That has been the practice of Strathclyde and other regions. I am not sure whether it is a legal right, but it always happens. By taking 1st January as the cut-off late, teachers are being deprived of 10 days' salary immediately.
More important, however, is the effect on the pension. It is almost certain that a teacher retiring or being forced to retire on 1st January will receive a smaller pension increase on 1st December 1977 than someone who voluntarily retires on 31st December. Will the Minister tell us whether he thinks that it was entirely appropriate for the date of 1st January to be selected? Mr. Docherty and other teachers to whom I have spoken think that if one date had to be chosen, the date of 1st January was the worst possible from the teachers' point of view.
I was disappointed that, in justifying the Bill, the Secretary of State made no reference to the educational effects of this change. If we are to make this change, which will have the effect of removing from schools between 300 and 400 dedicated teachers of advanced years, we should give a passing thought to the effect on the educational standards and character of our schools.
There are many reasons why we are not happy about our schools. We are not happy about standards of attainment; we are far from happy about standards of literacy and numeracy; and we are certainly far from happy about examination results. We are also extremely unhappy about discipline in schools, as has been said by many hon. Members. Have the Government given any thought to the change that will take place in the character of schools by removing these teachers of advanced years who have made such considerable contribution to them?
The Secretary of State made clear that the sole intention in introducing the Bill was to deal with the unemployment of


teachers coming from the colleges. Is it fair for the Government to bring forward this Bill instead of a package of measures that might provide other employment opportunities?
We feel that the Government have got their priorities wrong. Recently we were told that expenditure of an extra £1 million was the cost of providing another 700 teachers in Scotland if we took into account the unemployment benefit that they would otherwise get. Yet the Government recently introduced a Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee which would allow an extra £1 million for the provision of school milk. That shows the extent of the Government's priorities. They certainly are not concentrating on providing confidence in schools and an adequate supply of teachers, bearing in mind the special problems in Scottish schools.
In the present serious unemployment situation it would be irresponsible of the Opposition to oppose the Bill. However, for the reasons that I have indicated, we should not be put in the position of having to take panic measures. This is a panic measure. Having heard the panic reaction of the Secretary of State to this matter, the panic reaction of the Chancellor a few hours ago to the position of sterling, and the panic reaction of Ministers as a whole to the general situation in this country, I am sure that people are simply waiting for the day when a Conservative Government come back to office and they can again look to the future with confidence and hope.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said. That is not surprising, as much of our source material is taken from the same place. How can he reconcile what he said today with his party's defined attitude on public expenditure? The Conservative Party wants to cut public expenditure even more, but here we are proposing an increase in public expenditure. In trying to employ-more teachers and compensating those who leave at 65, we seek to increase public expenditure.
I declare an interest. I try to advise the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association

in an honorary capacity. The association does not oppose the principle of retiral at 65. That principle permeates industry. In the railways, where I was once employed, the docks the mines and most of the professions 65 is the retirement age. People who enter these professions know the score before they go in. They know when they will retire. My criticism of the Government is that under the Bill they are changing the rules in the middle of the game. Teachers' retiral age has been used like a barometer. When there is a surplus of teachers, the retiral age is lowered, and when there is a shortage it is raised. That is not the way to deal with an honourable profession like the teaching profession.
As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, we must establish a rational retirement system for the whole profession, including those who came in under the special recruitment scheme. My right hon. Friend said that the object of the Bill was to create jobs for newly qualified unemployed teachers. Lord Kirkhill said the same thing in another place. My right hon. Friend may have stumbled on a solution to the national malaise. He should toddle along to our right hon. Friend at No. 10, give him this solution—the one my right hon. Friend is applying to teachers—and ask, why not make it compulsory for people in industry to retire at 65? If unemployment still persisted, the age could be lowered by 10 years. That is not the way to deal with unemployment, and it is not the way to deal with teachers.
There should have been no need for this measure. Employment should have been found for the newly trained teachers. We made promises to those teachers and gave them the prospectus of a stable career, and we are breaking our promise. Twelve months ago we were advertising nationally to bring more teachers into the profession. The intake to the colleges was increased. Even today, in The Times Educational Supplement and the Scottish Educational Journal, local authorities advertise for teachers throughout Scotland. Strathclyde and Midlothian are advertising for teachers. According to my right hon. Friend, Strathclyde is only 20 secondary teachers short. In my constituency there is a shortage of at least 20 technical and maths teachers.
There may be plenty of teachers, but there are some departments which are very short. Will the Bill do what its sponsors hope it will do? Will the young teachers replace the retired teachers or will the local authorities save the money in the present squeeze?
My right hon. Friend said that he did not know precisely how many teachers would be affected by the Bill. On 3rd June he said there were 400. In the other place, Lord Kirkhill on 27th July said there were 300 teachers in this category. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in an answer to me on Wednesday said that there were 500 teachers in this category. Which figure are we to believe?
I can understand the Secretary of State's being unable to get the figures before the reorganisation of local government when it was necessary to approach hundreds of local education authorities, but that excuse does not apply now. In Scotland there are only 12 education authorities and he should at least have been able to give approximately correct figures. If there is this difficulty in getting such statistics, it is not surprising that we made such a blunder over the intake to teacher training colleges.
There are certain categories with which I am particularly concerned. My hon. Friend asked local authorities to do everything possible to recruit members of the public to go through the Special Recruitment Scheme and become teachers. Those teachers may have come into the profession with 10 years to go, perhaps hoping for 15 years, and now they are to be compulsorily retired. They were coaxed into the profession and came in with the highest ideals. They wanted to do a job, and they have done a job. Most of them have been teaching in schools where there has been a shortage of teachers and over-sized classes, and they have had to deal with the present-day vandalism and indiscipline which occurs in schools.
Another category with which I am concerned is women who responded to the Government appeal to come back to teaching. These include widows who were forced by economic circumstances to reenter the profession. I am not trying to make a case for teachers who have served for 25 or 30 years and have earned a

good pension. I ask the Secretary of State to give consideration to those who came in under the Special Recruitment Scheme to help him out over the hump of teacher shortage. Those are the people who will be penalised by the Bill.
I am informed that teachers will shortly be included in a scheme for improved redundancy and compensation payments if they retire between 55 and 65. I entirely support that. A teacher who has served 25 years and retires at 55 or 60 voluntarily with a reasonable pension will be given redundancy and compensation payments plus an enhanced pension. Negotiations are going on about this scheme. Yet the people who came into the profession to help us out will be compulsorily retired, without compensation, and without credit being given for the years that they hoped to serve. That is paradoxical.
As has been outlined by the hon. Member for Cathcart, there are two dates in the year which are for teachers, the worst possible dates for retiral. One is 1st January and the other is 30th June. A teacher who retires on 1st January instead of 31st December loses 11 per cent. of his pension. That is unfair as well as unjust.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will make the necessary adjustments to the Bill in Committee to permit a modicum of justice to be done to the teachers who came into the profession at the behest of both Governments. Justice is all I ask.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I well remember the time when there was much concern about the shortage of teachers and we were all engaged in thinking out methods of getting people into the profession and, once in, keeping them there. Now the picture is entirely changed and we are engaged in discouraging teachers and inducing them to retire early. Why has there been this complete reversal in a comparatively short time? What has gone wrong with the forecasts and calculations in the Government Departments?
Can the Minister explain to me—[Interruption] I doubt that he will be able to if he does not damn well listen. Can the Minister explain and tell me what arrangements are being made to get more accurate forecasts for the future?


This is important in view of the colossal sums we are spending on education and the necessity to avoid waste.
I think that it is probably right not to vote against the Bill, but personally I am not greatly enamoured of it. It seems to me that cut-backs in local authority expenditure could well lead to cut-backs in respect of teachers over 65 with no corresponding increase in employment for new teachers.
Secondly, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), I believe that the Bill could lead to a reduction of pension for some non-promoted teachers. That could be unfair. In addition, the Bill could make it compulsory to retire early at short notice, and there might be some injustice in that. It is not clear to me how many newly qualified teachers will not find jobs this year, but I have heard a figure of 2,000 bandied about. Is that figure correct? It has also been calculated that the expenditure of £1 million covers the cost of 700 teachers provided we take into account the savings on social security. Is that right?
It does not seem an entirely impossible task to employ those 2,000 teachers In doing so we would go a long way in helping the deprived areas to reduce the sizes of classes by giving added strength in certain departments where there are shortages, such as science and mathematics. The way in which I would deal with this problem is to scrap any idea of a Scottish Assembly. That absurd piece of nonsensical machinery is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Bill relates to the retirement of teachers and not to the retirement of a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Hutchison: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am giving my solution to deal with the teacher shortage and avoiding injustice. This Assembly will cost £10 million a year. Is that the top priority or is good schooling?

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was his usual spiteful carping self when he spoke a few minutes ago. The hon. Member has so much bile in him that when he is presenting a compassionate case to help people who have

to retire early, he sounds like the prosecuting attorney in a murder trial. I would certainly be the last person to ask him to put my case if I were seeking compassion from any hon. Member in the House.
We know perfectly well why the hon. Gentleman has to take this blustering attitude. It is to cover up the fact that he wants greater cuts in public expenditure, which would produce more teacher unemployment. There would be more unemployed nurses, social and housing workers.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman had no case to make when he was making his speech and was reduced to trying to bait Labour Members. I shall not be taken in by him.
I was particularly pleased to hear the Secretary of State's statement about the number of teachers in employment this year, especially in the Strathclyde area. He will know more than most, since he has been in the Scottish Office previously, that the problem of teacher unemployment in Strathclyde was particularly difficult. I know the efforts made by previous Governments to encourage recruits into the profession in Strathclyde.
I should be glad if the Minister would tell us exactly on what basis the Strathclyde returns are made, because he said there was a full complement of teachers in Strathclyde. Can he say something about the geographical distribution?
He will remember the very difficult time we had with the Scottish teaching profession about designation payments and the way of attracting teachers into schools which badly needed them but could not get them. In some parts of the area there is an excess of staff over complement in certain schools, and that might be because Strathclyde has now taken over the eduction for virtually the whole of the West of Scotland and has been able to help in the redistribution of teaching staff within the global numbers available.
Like many other hon. Members from Scottish constituencies, I have had approaches from people who misunderstand the purpose of the Bill and, indeed, misunderstand the flexibility in it. I believe that among certain teachers,


especially those over 65, there is a feeling that the Bill makes it mandatory on local authorities to compel teachers to retire at 65 and that, as soon as the Bill is passed, such teachers will automatically be out of a job.
As I understand the Bill, that is not the position. The position is that the retiring age will normally be 65, but even in unpromoted posts—I think this is an advance—the teacher, at the discretion of the local authority, may be employed on a year-to-year basis. As I understand it, that is open ended. There is no age limit which restricts the temporary retirement. Teachers can still go on to 75 on a year-to-year basis.
I understand that although promoted teachers may be employed for a period of up to three months, I can see nothing in the Bill to prevent a promoted teacher from retiring from his promoted post and then taking up a position as an unpromoted teacher. If that is the case, there is certainly a little concern about how many jobs will be free for unpromoted teachers. It does not seem right that someone can come out of a promoted post and go into an unpromoted post, because that will take up the slack. I hope that the Secretary of State will say something about how the discretion will be applied and whether in the circumstances it will be permissible to keep on in this temporary capacity teachers qualified for employment.
The point has been made often enough that former teachers—particularly women—have come back into teaching at a later age having had to leave the profession, for instance, to raise a family. Once the family has grown up, she has returned to teaching, but her cumulative pension is affected. It is true that teachers have the facility of taking account of past service, but there is some anxiety about the effect of the Houghton Report on pensions.
My right hon. Friend said that he had had consultations with COSLA about what criteria may be applied in employing teachers beyond the age of 65. COSLA gave assurances that its individual members would take hardship into consideration when looking at those falling into this category. I do not doubt the word of COSLA but I am not

so certain that individual members will carry out COSLA's agreement. I wonder how many individual members of COSLA were behind this idea to deal with hardship. I ask the Minister whether he will send out a circular giving the criteria and of other assistance and guidance to individual local education authorities.
Has he considered for a limited period crediting teachers over 65, or teachers approaching 65 in the next few years, with, say, two years of increments in relation to pensions in order that they can get the benefit from the increased pension? This idea is perhaps worth considering, because it would help people in hardship.
It might make more economic and educational sense to give the credits and allow teachers to give up teaching and let new people in at the bottom of the scale than to keep teachers on for longer. If at the moment only 400 teachers are involved—the figure would obviously rise if the concession were extended for five years—the economic cost might be worth while. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us how he has looked at this and whether any estimate of the cost is possible.
I had representations from my constituents when this proposal was first discussed. The measures seemed much harder on those over 65 and those about to reach that age than I at first thought. I am satisfied that my hon. Friend has gone a long way to introduce flexibility and protect individual teachers, but I hope that he will consider the alternatives with an open mind and be willing to go further in Committee.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: It is very sad that we have come to this pass tonight, although I agree that the Bill should not be opposed. It is the result of the failure of the Government's economic policy. For the first time in the lifetime of any of us, the Government have run out of money to the extent that they cannot, even if there is a shortage of teachers, make use of all the teachers available to them, whom they have put through training college at public expense.
I hope that all those concerned in education—whether parents or teachers—


will now be aware of the results of financial incompetence at the top on their own lives and service and on the education of their children. That is what we are discussing.
The Secretary of State, I am sure unintentionally, made the misleading assertion that only 625 young teachers were registered as unemployed—after the concern we had all been expressing during the summer about figures of more than 2,000. A few sentences later, almost in an aside, he referred to the 1,000 young teachers involved in the job creation scheme.
That is a useful scheme, which those taking part find much better than hanging around doing nothing, but we must be careful to avoid the error of categorising them as not unemployed. Although they are occupied, they are emphatically unemployed. The young teachers involved in the scheme will be most upset if they think that the House of Commons is writing them off as if their problems were over and they were now settled in a career, because they are not.
So the true figure of young teachers who still do not have jobs, even after being trained to the pitch, is still 1,600, according to the Secretary of State. It is the Government's failure to provide money which is so tragic. It is the more so since all our political lives we have all been concerned about shortage of teachers and very large classes. Whereever this subject comes up, we have had to explain that the Government of the day would do their best to raise the numbers of teachers and that then class sizes would be reduced and teaching standards improved, particularly in deprived areas.
Now we have a sufficiency of supply of teachers and, because of falling birth rates some time ago, a gradual decrease in the number of pupils. The tragic coincidence of circumstances is that now of all times the Government have failed to provide the money to make the improvements. I am sure that they also will agree that that is desperately sad.
I hope that Ministers do not think that they are simply the victims of the incompetence of their colleagues on the financial side of the Government. They should also bear in mind the Government's priorities in the use of available funds. In his speech at Oxford a week ago, the Prime Minister said:

The challenge to education is to exercise its priorities and to secure as high efficiency as possible by the skilful use of the £6,000 million of resources which are available.
Those are very telling words. But in the opinion of many people, even within the money they have, which of course is too little, the Government themselves seem to have produced the strangest priorities. It is not as if the sum required to employ about 1,600 teachers is vast in relation to education spending, which in the United Kingdom, according to the Prime Minister, is £6,000 million and in Scotland is about £500 million. Only a tiny fraction of that would be required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) referred to a report in The Scotsman which estimated that only £1 million would be required to employ 700 teachers if the consequent social security savings were taken into account. That may be a little optimistic, but even so the sums are not large in the total education budget.
Educational spending in Scotland is running at about £101 per head per year. If the estimate in The Scotsman is right, we could employ nearly all those out of work for about £2 million or so—40p a year per head, or less than 1p a week. Put another way, since there are about 1 million pupils in Scottish primary and secondary schools, the cost would be £2 per pupil per year. That means 4p per week throughout the year or, if one cares to concentrate it on the school year, the weeks during which children are at school, little more than 5p a week per pupil would enable us to employ all these teachers.
The Government's other expenditure priorities in education, which they seem to regard as sacrosanct in many ways, should be borne in mind. No one has addressed himself to the changing of priorities within the expenditure that we have already.
The Under-Secretary will remember that we had long discussions in the summer about expenditure when we discussed the Education Bill in Committee. I draw his attention again to the fact that in the education budget he spends just over £23 million a year on school meals. Of course it is important to have school meals, and that they should be good and sufficient. However, all of us hear suggestions now


and again—certainly I often do—that in some respects school meals are over-extravagantly produced. Be that as it may, that is what we spend.
Of course it is important, but is it the Government's view that it is more important to keep down the cost of school meals than to have enough teachers? Is it more important to reduce the cost of school meals by 5p than to have an extra teacher in a deprived area? Is it more important to reduce the cost of school meals by 5p, for example, than to have a smaller class and, thereby, better tuition for children, particularly difficult children or children in their last year at school?
The Government have a wrong priority. I agree with anyone who feels that school meals are very important, but I cannot find it in me to see that they are more important than having enough teachers and more important than employing 1,600 young people the beginnings of whose careers are being blighted by their not being able to practise their profession.
Does the Under-Secretary feel that it is more important to keep down the cost of school meals than to have more teachers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman far too much latitude. We are still discussing the question of the retirement of teachers, not the employment of young teachers who are unemployed. The hon. Gentleman has developed that argument fairly fully.

Mr. Younger: I shall try to obey your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the purpose of the Bill was stated by the Secretary of State to be purely in order to give employment to young teachers. He said that in so many words. I have nearly finished my speech. Perhaps I may finish the last part, which is relevant.
If the Under-Secretary will answer my question, I shall be happy. Perhaps he will go further and try another alternative. I make these points because some Labour Members have taken my hon. Friends to task and have accused the Opposiiton of always wanting cuts in Government spending while not being prepared to say where we would reduce it. I hope that I may be acquitted of that, if of nothing else. I am being perfectly open about where I think the money ought to come from to

employ these teachers. I have given one example. I shall give another.
We have the provision for the giving of free school milk to children in primary schools. It is not given in secondary schools because a previous Labour Government withdrew it. However, there is a proposal for allocating a further £1 million—which has now been done—for extending that free milk provision to children at primary schools who are beyond the age of 7. That is what the Government have thought a proper priority for which to lay aside £1 million. They have laid £1 million aside for that while refusing to put that sum aside for employing young teachers. They have decided that it is more important to extend the provision of school milk to more pupils—many of whose parents are well paid—than to give jobs to young teachers.
Will the Minister please answer straightforwardly why he thinks it is more important to extend free milk provision than to give these young teachers jobs, to have smaller class sizes and to have more teachers teaching in deprived areas, where teaching is difficult? No one on the Government side of the House has ever answered that question.
I am sad about the Bill. However, it must be supported, because if we have to choose between allowing people at the end of their careers to carry on beyond what many of us regard as retiring age or giving young teachers who have never had the chance of putting their professional skills into practice the opportunity to start careers, we must come down on the side on which the Government have come down.
This is a sad situation. It is a bad situation for education and an unhappy situation for many distinguished elderly teachers who could still have much to give to schools. It is all the result of the total failure of the Government's economic policies, which have made them run out of money. I hope to goodness that the Government will realise it.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Secretary of State admitted in his opening remarks that the background to the Bill is the unemployment situation among young teachers. It is a particularly tragic situation in Scotland


today. Earlier in the summer it was estimated that about 2,000 student teachers had left Scottish colleges of education and were unable to find jobs teaching. The Secretary of State said that 625 were registered as unemployed in September. That is the latest figure. However, about another 1,000 are in job creation programmes. Many of these programmes do not exactly involve jobs in which teachers are using their teaching skills to the fullest degree.
Of course, there are many others who are in other types of employment. I know several student teachers who have been forced to take jobs on building sites because they cannot get jobs teaching. Therefore, by anyone's measure, the total of student teachers who left the colleges in Scotland this summer and who have so far been unable to find jobs teaching is nearer 2,000 than 1,000.
We have had several suggestions over the past few months about how these teachers can be employed and how we can alleviate the problem. I have made suggestions for smaller classes and for remedial classes and to compensate children who have in the past been receiving part-time education. Many of these children come from areas of multiple deprivation. We have heard suggestions that extra teachers could be used to cover for teachers who are absent through illness or who are on in-service courses. One disturbing feature is the growing number of composite classes. They are not always composite for educational reasons. There is concealment of the teacher supply situation by the abuse of composite classes in some circumstances. I also believe that adult literacy programmes would be helped a lot by a more adequate supply of teachers.
So far, the Government's reactions have been, basically, to put forward three measures. The first is job creation. Although I recognise that 1,000 students have been found jobs by job creation programmes when they might not have found jobs otherwise at all—to that extent we are grateful for small mercies—nevertheless, the Secretary of State admitted that the Job Creation Scheme, essentially, is a stop-gap, temporary measure.
I was partly responsible for initiating a job creation programme using student teachers in Lennox Castle Hospital in

my constituency, where they are in fact using their teaching skills. Lennox Castle Hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Scotland dealing with mentally handicapped patients, both children and adults. The education of the mentally handicapped is a very important feature of Scottish education, particularly since the new legislation came into operation in May 1975. However, it appears rather a pity that the General Teaching Council does not recognise the period of service that these young people are giving in the hospital schools under the job creation programmes as qualifying service for their probationary period.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to keep in order.

Mr. Canavan: I shall move on to deal with another point. The Secretary of State said that measures had been taken to reduce the intake to colleges this session, and that further reductions would take place thereafter. But that will cause even more unemployment within the staffs of colleges of education. Now we have the third measure, namely this Bill.
I am in favour of early retirement opportunities not just for teachers but for all workers, manual, skilled or semiskilled, and indeed for professional people, provided that there are adequate safeguards to maintain pension rights. It is not good enough to say in this instance that local authorities have discretionary powers to deal with hardship cases. Something should be written into the Bill to provide adequate compensation for teachers with less than, say, 25 years' service. Some of those teachers may be widows or married women who gave early service to the profession, who left for a period of time to bring up their family, and who returned to teaching on the understanding that they would be able to work until the age of 70, if they desired to do so, thereby qualifying for a good pension. That right now appears to be somewhat eroded. I should like to see more measures for adequate compensation written into the Bill and not left merely to a local authority's discretion.
The date of operation of the Bill presents some difficulties. I understand that 1st January 1977 is also the date of qualification for pension increases. This


will mean a considerable difference for somebody who retires on 31st December 1976 compared with a person who retires on 1st January 1977—indeed, as I am informed, a difference of up to 10 per cent. in pension terms. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that matter. Perhaps he will be able to say whether it will be better to postpone the date of operation of the Bill, possibly to March 1977. I hope that there will be more consultation with the teachers' union on this and other matters.
In his opening remarks the Secretary of State said that about 400 teachers would be affected initially by the Bill, but he was unable to say whether they were teachers of subjects in which there is still a shortage, such as mathematics and technical subjects, and whether the vacancies thus created by teachers leaving could be filled by young teachers who are looking for jobs. It will not help the situation if, for example, too many modern language or science teachers are leaving when at the same time it is discovered that most of the teachers on the dole have qualifications in English or modern studies. What efforts have the Scottish Education Department made to match the resulting vacancies that will be caused by the Bill with the qualification of teachers who are now unemployed? The job would not be particularly difficult.
Reference was made to a figure of 800 extra civil servants employed at the Scottish Office. We know that Her Majesty's inspectors are wandering all over Scotland looking at schools and we also know that their advice and comments are often not highly respected by the teaching profession. Many inspectors have been refugees from the classroom with little in the way of actual classroom teaching experience. But surely they can at least count up to 400. Can we not use these inspectors or those extra civil servants to obtain adequate statistics about the effects of the Bill?
Many teachers doubt whether the Bill will have any far-reaching effect in creating more vacancies for young teachers. I estimate that the effect will be minimal. I do not think that we shall see any radical change in the number of teachers employed, or in any other forms of employment in the public sector, unless

there is a radical change in the Government economic strategy in a more Socialist direction.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) made one of the most hypocritical contributions that I have heard for a long time. I do not know whether he was present in the Chamber this afternoon to hear the Conservative Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), call for even more savage cuts in public expenditure—cuts that would make even the Chancellor of the Exchequer look like Santa Claus. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Cathcart to say that he supports further savage cuts in public spending while at the same time appearing to disown the inevitable results of those cuts. The results undoubtedly would be fewer teachers and social workers, less housing and so on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made clear.
I have a little more respect for the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), apart from the fact that he is a constituent of mine. But he was being a little simplistic when he said that the solution to the problem was less milk and more teachers. The inevitable consequences of Conservative economic policy would be less milk, or indeed no milk at all, and very many fewer teachers. The hon. Member for Cathcart said that he looked forward to the return of a Conservative Government. Has he forgotten that on the last occasion when we had the misfortune to have such a Government even he himself resigned from it?
I conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that this small measure will be accompanied by more important measures to provide more jobs for teachers and certainly better standards of education for the children of Scotland.

5.57 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: It is clear from the debate that there is little antagonism in the House towards this Bill. Most people accept its underlying philosophy, but everybody seems to have some reservations. We in the SNP are no different in that respect.
Before I go on to make my specific reservations about the Bill, I wish to take


up one or two points made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in opening the debate. I, too, welcome the ending of part-time education in Strathclyde. I have a particular interest since I trained in Glasgow and spent several years teaching in the Strathclyde region. I remember the crowded classrooms and the dreadful conditions.
I felt that there was a hint of complacency in the Secretary of State's remarks. We should not accept the situation that the Red Book and the Circular 819 standards should be the only ones that exist within our schools. We wish to see a reduction in class sizes and a general improvement in standards throughout our schools. I appreciate that this would involve extra expenditure. My party believes that it has an alternative solution to offer to the Scottish people, and we hope that they will opt for it.
I am concerned about the slight atmosphere of complacency, particularly in regard to the Strathclyde area. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the first annual report of the Strathclyde Regional Council. Dealing with educational deprivation, the report stated that 85 per cent. of the population within the region had no recognised educational qualification. We must not perpetuate such a situation. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in an article in the Glasgow Herald of 22nd September admitted
… we have a new scourge: schools which have become the new ghettoes of education.
I hope that he will not forget the commitment to try to eradicate those ghettos.
Another worrying aspect for the whole of Scottish education lies in the decline in the number of working-class children going through university. The main sufferers are working-class males. I refer the Government to an article in New Society on 21st October this year which, referring to working-class males in Scotland, said:
… whereas they formed 24·6 per cent. of the univirsity student body in the earlier period, ten years later this had fallen to 18 per cent. This change affected both the ancient and new technological universities equally".
There is no cause for complacency in these figures.
I was struck by the Secretary of State's definition of the numbers of young unemployed

teachers and how many were likely to be employed as a result of the Bill. I cannot accept that job creation schemes are a creative and useful way of employing highly skilled and qualified people whose talents could be so well used in these areas to which I have referred. I accept that the job creation scheme is a temporary measure, but it seems a terrible waste of resources. I do not see how many of these youngsters employed in this way will be taken out of the job creation schemes into education as a result of this measure. There appears to be no guarantee that any substantial number of young unemployed teachers will gain employment. I feel that we are tinkering with the situation.
What will happen next year? Shall we see a continuation in the reduction of the retirement age? Anyone who goes into a school at 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon anywhere in Scotland will find most teachers willing to say "Let's retire at 40, as long as we can have our pensions" What are we planning to ensure that next year teachers find the opportunities within the school system? The Secretary of State made great play on this question of the discretion of local authorities in individual cases. I have no reason to doubt what COSLA was saying but I wonder how much freedom there will be for a local authority, given the current public expenditure background.
The people who will be asked to retire under this measure will be higher up the scale in educational terms and will therefore be receiving higher salaries. It would seem to be one way of saving some money—not a great deal—to retire people who are on a higher scale and to employ younger teachers lower down the scale. I feel that this is a subtle pressure which may be put upon local authorities and which will militate against discretion being exercised in all cases. The local authorities will have to set against the employment of teachers the demands of social work departments and the pressures which they are facing.
Since I am the only woman who has remained here through the debate I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think that I am speaking as a "Women's Libber" if I say that I feel that the Bill will adversely affect women teachers in schools. Many married women and widows came back to teaching through the


special recruitment scheme. Many women were away from teaching for 10 or 15 years, for obvious reasons. They want to use the extra four or five years at the end of their career to guarantee them an additional pension right. What kind of guarantee will be given to these women that they will have the pension they deserve when they retire? We must bear in mind that these are the women who most often did not seek promotion within the school system. They were the people who kept the schools going as assistant teachers and on whom our education system is totally dependent.
Like others who have spoken, I have reservations about the dates that have been chosen. I will not reiterate the points that have already been made. The Under-Secretary is aware of the brief from which these comments came and of the arguments against the dates. Perhaps, in replying, he can give a commitment to the effect that he will look again at the dates and perhaps opt for a more sensible date, such as the end of February, which I understand is one which the teachers' unions seem to like. Can he tell us whether he will consider the question of compensation for those who will lose out on what they would have received for, say, five years' service? Will some kind of compensation for these people be accepted in Committee? Many of them would like to retire but they are worried about their pension level, and that is understandable with current inflation rates.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall confine myself to one factual question. It arises from a discussion I had at an excellent concert given by the Lothian School Orchestra, which played a Dvorak Symphony in the Music Hall in Edinburgh—following coaching at the West Linton Centre and many weeks of work by music teachers in the Lothian Region. How does this Bill affect music, in which subject in a number of schools there are still acute shortages?
I realise that it would be awkward to pick out one subject and to say that the regulations cannot apply to it for certain reasons but I do ask my hon. Friend whether consideration has been given to how the Bill affects the supply of music teachers.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and in particular his remarks about refugees from the classroom and the various posts they were occupying in the public interest at present. I share entirely his view that the quicker these refugees get back to the classroom the better it will be for the public, although I can understand that there may be some doubts whether it would be in the interests of the children as a whole so far as certain of these gentlemen are concerned.
I agree with the general view that it is important that all should be done that can be done to promote the interests or teacher employment hi Scotland. What is extraordinary about the Bill is that the only measure which the Government seem interested in bringing forward aims at helping teachers at one end of the spectrum by making those at the other end unemployed. A system of compulsory redundancy or compulsory retirement is not the most appropriate or sensible way of pursuing the interests of teacher employment, even if it were to make a major contribution towards solving that problem, which all of us concede is not the case.
Not simply in the sphere of education, but generally, I have great reservations about—indeed I am quite hostile to—the whole principle of compulsory retirement for all persons, irrespective of their individual desire to continue with their work and irrespective of the desire of their employers to continue with their services.
I entirely accept the view of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire that in general it is desirable that we should move towards a society where people can retire earlier. However, I add the rider—"If they want to". In many occupations people will be delighted to retire at the earliest date that will guarantee their pensions. But there are other cases, and teaching is one of them, where many persons find that they are at the height of their capabilities, thoroughly enjoying their work and making a major contribution, when they reach the age of 65 or even 70.
That emphasis should be on compulsory entitlement to retire rather than an


obligation to retire irrespective of the circumstances prevailing at a particular time. What worries me about the Bill is that it insists that teachers—irrespective of their ability and the contribution they are able to make towards the good running of schools and irrespective of the desires of teachers, pupils and the public—will be forced to retire at a specific age. This will certainly apply to those in promoted posts. There may be a substantial net damage done to educational interests as a result of this compulsory measure.
All Governments over the years have been guilty of using the age of retirement as an artificial way of boosting the employment figures for teachers in Scotland. If we look back over the past 20 years we see that in 1956, at a time when there was a shortage of teachers, the retiral age for promoted and non-promoted teachers was raised from 65 to 70. This was not because of what it might achieve in itself but simply because of the contribution it might make towards the retirement situation.
In 1970 there was a relative increase in the problem of unemployed teachers. So the age of retiral for promoted teachers was brought down to 65 while for non-promoted teachers it remained at 70. Now the age of retiral for non-promoted teachers is also to be brought down to 65. There seems to be a rather arbitrary juggling with age of retiral. What we should be concerned with are the more substantial reasons why unemployment exists in the profession and what can be done to guarantee the livelihood of teachers.
Another point relates to the problems to be faced by the 400 and more teachers to be affected by the Bill. Many of them will have been working, saving and planning on the assumption of at least another five years of employment—and a major factor, when approaching retiral age, is the length of time one can expect to continue in employment on full salary. Now, under the Bill, come 1st January next, unless the local authority wishes them to continue, they will find themselves on the street, with their pension entitlement reduced but without the benefit of the full salary which they had every reason to expect to be receiving for another five years if their health justified it.
This is a dangerous precedent. Many of these people came into the profession, or back into it, only because of enticement by the Government, urging them in the public interest to respond to such blandishments. Now, with the minimum of notice, they will find themselves unemployed without further prospect of employment. These are important problems and reservations about the Bill.
One can say that these problems and reservations have to be accepted in return for the major benefits which the Bill will have. But what are the benefits? The maximum number of jobs which could be created as a result of the Bill is about 400. But we do not know how many of these 400 teachers are in departments where there is a shortage of jobs. I asked the Secretary of State earlier whether that had been taken into account, and what proportion of the 400 were in departments where there were job shortages. I was astonished when he replied that he was unable to give the information because, he said, it was not available, and that it would be up to the local authorities to decide whether they wished to continue with the employment of teachers because of shortages in, say, mathematics.
Before they put forward the measure for compulsory retirement, the Government should have made some effort to establish how many teachers in areas where there were job shortages—in subjects and departments where there were people ready and willing to take these jobs—would continue as a result of the Bill. Surely the Government with all their facilities, should have been able to provide such information. If it turns out that a large proportion of the 400 will be asked to continue by the local authorities, we shall have been wasting our time with the Bill. All it will have achieved is to put into unemployment a small number of individuals without significant benefit in return.
Finally, there is the question of flexibility in the Bill. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that in non-promoted posts teachers could continue indefinitely, if the local authority wished, for a year at a time, whereas in promoted posts, teachers could continue only for a maximum of three months. I have a letter on this aspect from Dundee High School. I am not sure


why it wrote to me, but it is a matter of general interest.
The school has a rector who reaches his 65th birthday in November. It wishes him to continue as rector, because it employed him on that basis, until June 1977. He agreed to do so in advance of the Bill's publication. As a result of his agreement to continue until June, a programme of internal reorganisation of the departments was put in hand, to be organised by the rector in his final year to be handed over to a new rector as a completed project. The school informs me:
It will be extremely difficult for us to complete this particular project if the rector is forced to retire on 31st March 1977.
The school authorities press for some flexibility which would allow, instead of the three months which the Bill provides, a period of six months, which is the term which would be required in this case in order to enable the present rector to complete the internal reorganisation which only he is capable of carrying out. The school and the pupils will suffer as a result of the unnecessary urgency in the Bill.
However, when I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State, he replied:
To go beyond the period of three months would, in my view, tend to undermine the primary object of the Bill.
That is an unfortunate answer. He is saying, in effect, that if there were discretion in the Bill for the authorities in very special cases, such as that of the Dundee High School, to allow, in the overwhelming interest of school and pupils, a certain individual to remain at his post for a mere 12 or 13 weeks longer, it would destroy the purpose of the Bill.
I shall move an amendment accordingly in Committee, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reconsider his answer and will be able to give a more comprehensive reply to these points and, if possible, allow greater flexibility to enable us not only to meet such cases but to welcome the Bill with slightly greater enthusiasm.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: There seems to be general agreement on the principle of the Bill, which will allow for older teachers over the age of 65 to make way for younger men

and women to obtain employment in the teaching profession. However, so many figures have been bandied about that it strikes me that hon. Members are right to have some misgivings about certain of its practical effects.
For example, in June, the Secretary of State advised me that the latest date for which information then available had been analysed was September 1974, when there were 264 and 126 full-time teachers in education authority primary and secondary schools respectively who, by 31st December 1974, would have reached their 65th birthday. He pointed out that information about the number of teachers who had reached their 75th birthday was not readily available. Yet many hon. Members have heard examples of people who are over that age and still teaching.
A genuine problem seems to exist over the matching of subjects in our schools My right hon. Friend, in opening the debate, told us that the problem of the maldistribution of teachers throughout Scotland on a geographical basis has been largely overcome in recent years, but we still have a problem over the supply of teachers for specific subjects. How seriously is this problem being tackled by the Scottish Education Department? We have a shortage of mathematics teachers in our schools, and perhaps we could do with one or two more mathematicians in the Scottish Education Department to sort out some of these figures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) said that special consideration should be given to those who came into the profession as a result of the Special Recruitment Scheme. I think that he is right. We have a duty towards those who very often left other employment in order to enter the teaching profession. They should be very sympathetically dealt with by the Scottish Education Department. At the same time, we are going to throw quite a burden on the local authorities, which will have to assess the future requirements. One of the things worrying many people, including those serving on local authorities who have to bear the brunt, is that natural wastage may be used instead of filling vacant posts with the younger men and women we would


like to see gaining employment in the profession.
I hope that the Minister, in his reply to the debate, will give us some assurances that the effort now being made by this small measure will result in more jobs becoming available for younger entrants to the profession. Certainly the local authorities will be involved in a good deal of individual case work in ironing out some of the personal difficulties of teachers over 65 who for one reason or another feel that they are being unjustly treated.
With regard to the problem of deprived areas, I was one who argued that the job creation scheme funds should be used for the employment of teachers. However, it was not in my mind that the funds should be used simply as a means of providing short-term employment. Rather I had argued, as the Minister well knows, that the funds, which at that time were available to the job creation scheme in Scotland, should simply be transferred to the Scottish Education Department for the purpose of providing additional jobs.
I am bound to say that many of us at times despair about seeing any real improvements in some of our deprived areas. They are always at the end of the queue at the best of times, and in these lean days we should, if at all possible, be making many more efforts to ensure that at least they can nudge their way a little higher up the queue.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) because a number of the points that I wished to make are very similar to his.
I am, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), supporting the Bill because of the position we are now in, but the reason we are in this position is basically the fault of the present Government. Had the Government's economic policies not been such a miserable failure, and had we not to cut back expenditure in order to survive at all, we should not be introducing a Bill of this nature today, because the local authorities would be able to employ the vast majority of the teachers who have not a job at the present time. This argument applies to teachers themselves, school

building, education services generally, and to the auxiliary staff which could be employed. I feel particularly strongly about the fact that under the present Government we have never got off the ground at all with nursery education.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, very poor resources have been made available for the deprived areas. But the Government are at the same time perfectly happy to increase expenditure on school milk and school meals. Therefore, while accepting the Bill, I emphasise that it is a culmination of the policies of the present Government.
I hope that the Minister, in winding up the debate, will say something about the inclusion in the Bill of the grant-aided schools. The Minister is busily trying to phase out and abolish the grant-aided schools—an infamous policy, if ever there were one—yet he is including the grant-aided school teachers in the Bill. When will he complete the phasing out of the grant-aided schools? These schools would, of course, much rather have the substantial grants that they would be getting if there were a Conservative Government in power at the present moment.
I should love to know what has gone wrong with the statistical department of the Scottish Education Department. I know that the computer was singularly unreliable and broke down at the first sight of a student grant or allowance, but why cannot we have simple statistics on the number of teachers either in employment or unemployed? Now that there are so few education authorities, surely it is not so difficult to produce the facts that all hon. Members would like to have when dealing with a Bill such as this.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State indicated that the number of unemployed was about 450. There are also 1,000 teachers employed on a temporary basis, of course, under the job creation scheme, which we welcome. Some actions taken under the scheme are particularly valuable. But these must be regarded as only temporary jobs, and perhaps the Minister in winding up the debate will tell us whether in general he thinks that this position will continue for a few years to come. This in itself, of course, is a further condemnation of


his Government's economic policy, but it would be useful to know that 1,000 teachers are doing something worth while at the present time.
The Government hope that some 400 teachers will retire under the Bill. I do not know whether this is possible for him without a calculator, but, in relation to the 400 teachers, will this retirement work out by subject? I am under the impression that a substantial number of the 400 are in mathematics and science, and that among the unemployed there are not very many in mathematics and science. Shall we, because of the Bill, end up with a shortage of teachers of mathematics and science?
I am sure we all agree that many teachers in the latter stages of their professional life have done most excellent work in a period of great difficulty, when teachers have been in short supply. I feel particularly sad in regard to those teachers who were late starters and came in under the Special Recruitment Scheme. As mature students, they have been particularly valuable to education. Many of them had had experience of life in the professions or in business, and were able to add something to teaching in joining at 35 or 40 years of age. They will now find, unfortunately, that their careers have been shortened by the Bill, and no doubt their pensions have been reduced substantially.
The Minister cannot dodge this issue, and I am sure that he will explain the reason for 1st January as the retirement date. It has been made abundantly clear by the teaching associations that 1st January is the worst possible date in the year. Had 2nd January been chosen, teachers would have had a better pension. Did the Department pluck 1st January out of the blue, or did the draftsmen do this? There seems to be some reason for the Minister going out of his way to cut the pension of these teachers, who are also having their employment terminated.
I hope, too, that the Minister will explain whether he now has time, under the Employment Protection Act, to give the statutory notice to the teachers who will be unemployed on 1st January. As I read it, the teachers are entitled to so many weeks' notice for so many years'

service. I am not at all sure that the Minister will be able to fulfil his duty under the Act in respect of those teachers who will leave on 1st January. For the life of me, I do not know why he did not give them their pay at least until the end of the holiday. Each of these cases may well be a personal tragedy to the individual teacher concerned. I hope that the SED and the education authorities will be as sympathetic as possible over the coming months.
I, too, feel that many of the teachers who will be retired compulsorily are those who have given extremely good service in single-teacher rural schools—posts which are supposedly difficult to fill, or so education authorities believe. However, with the number of unemployed teachers at present, I doubt whether that is strictly true. In any event, I feel extremely disturbed about the willy-nilly closure of rural schools despite the protests coming from parents.
Will the Minister also say a little about whether this proposal affects List D schools? It is not clear from the Bill. We are extremely concerned about what the Minister is doing to the List D schools and the action that he proposes in the face of the Mitchell Report which is still not yet before the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not discussing List D schools.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate that we are not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, teachers in List D schools may be retired compulsorily, and this is very important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a different point. The hon. Gentleman was asking the Minister what he proposed to do about the running of the List D schools.

Mr. Monro: I shall not pursue the matter, of course, but I am sure that the Minister has taken the point that we are gravely concerned about the position of teachers in List D schools now and if he carries out his threat to hand the schools over to the local authorities.
I welcome the improvement in pupil-teacher ratios, both in primary and in secondary schools, which has in effect caused the surplus of teachers. However, as I have explained, this is also due in large part to economic circumstances. Looking back at the 1972 White Paper,


we are very much on course in terms of pupil-teacher ratios, teachers in post and pupils in school. Therefore, we must ask the Minister whether the real error here is not the number of students who have been taken into colleges of education, whether as primary students or as graduates. I take responsibility for those who went into colleges in 1973 on three-year courses. They came out qualified this year. However, thereafter it is the responsibility of the present Government, and I want to know why, in the face of the improving situation and in the face of the figures available in the White Paper and in the SED, the Minister apparently continued to allow an increase in the number of entrants to colleges of education, both of primary and of graduate students.
The Minister must look at this position very seriously from the standpoint of graduates. Why was it that in 1975 he allowed in 300 more than 1974–75? Surely, 12 months ago, he could see what was happening. He must have been able to. I cannot believe that he was so remiss as not to look at the figures. Why did he allow in that substantial additional number? Was it the result of pressure from the teachers association or from the colleges, or was it that he did not know when to put on the brake? I am talking about secondary entrants a year ago—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It was the computer.

Mr. Monro: It is very important that the Minister should answer this question. There is no doubt that the 1973 entrants who are coming out now would have had jobs had we not been in the chronic economic situation that we have today.
Here is a Bill which we have to accept because of Government failure at a time when standards seem to be static and when we should be looking towards an improvement in education rather than a deterioration. Whether it be in discipline, in moral and religious education, in nursery education or even in sport and recreation, we do not seem to be keeping up our standards. All in all, we feel sad that such a Bill is necessary. It is because of the Government's failure to understand the economic facts of life that it is before us. However, in view of what has happened and in order to help the very large

number of teachers who are without work, we must support the Bill.

6.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): If I were to attempt to reply to all the matters raised in this short debate, I should be speaking for an hour—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: There is plenty of time.

Mr. McElhone: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) says, there is plenty of time. However, a number of Opposition Members have made positive contributions to the debate and have now left the Chamber. I am surprised that they have not had the courtesy to return in order to listen to the ministerial reply. However, they may yet come in. Time will tell.
It is only fair that I should begin by thanking hon. Members for the interest that they have shown in the debate and for their many positive contributions to it. Of course, I do not agree with all that they have said. But they have shown a lively interest in the Bill and in Scottish education as a whole.
There were a number of accusations made during the debate to the effect that we were forcing teachers out of schools and making life very difficult for them. That is quite untrue.
Let me respond to the main points put forward in the debate. It has been suggested that the Bill discriminates against poorly paid teachers, widows, and others entering late who have short service. This criticism comes mainly from the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association. Of course, the Government recognise that there are bound to be instances when teachers will need to stay in employment for personal reasons. That is why we have an element of flexibility in the Bill. If I may restate the main principles, a promoted teacher retires at 65 and may carry on for three months so as not to disturb a period within a term, and a teacher who is not promoted could go on to 70 prior to this Bill.
The reorganisation of local Government, put forward by the Conservative Party following the Wheatley recommendations, stressed the need to give more and more responsibility and more and more decision making to local authorities.


That is what we are doing. We are following the process of Wheatley and local government reorganisation. We are saying to the local authorities that if for any reason they feel that a teacher who should now retire at 65 wishes to go on, he may be allowed to do so at the discretion of the local authority on a year-to-year basis. This will also apply to positions of subject shortage. Although we are glad to see the tremendous increase in teacher supply, we realise that there is a shortage in such subjects as technical education, science, physics and music.
My right hon. Friend made the point that he had been given an assurance by COSLA that it would look at every case in a sympathetic fashion. Those of us who have spent some time in local government and have heard the word given by the local authority chairman of COSLA can be assured by that. The Government think that this is an assurance of great importance and are sure that they can rely on the good will and humanity of education authorities.
There has been more than one reference to the Special Recruitment Scheme. The scheme was intended for applicants under 45 years of age, which means that those retiring now at the age of 65 will have at least 20 years' service. The booklet issued to those interested in the scheme indicated that a teacher could retire at any age after 60 and draw his accrued pension rights. Nowhere does it say that a teacher must stay on until 70 years of age. More than half of those affected will have more than 20 years' service on 1st January. They are those who came in under the late entry scheme.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it correct to say that the Bill will not disadvantage teachers of music?

Mr. McElhone: I regard music as an important part of the curriculum. It is as important as many other subjects. We are thinking about it and all I can promise is that music will get the same treatment as other subject in which there is a shortage.

Mr. Iain MacConnick: In the present economic crisit can the Minister really be saying that the teaching of music is as important as the teaching of many

other subjects more closely related to the economic wellbeing of the country?

Mr. McElhone: As he is a gentleman and a cultured Highlander, I would have thought that music was important to the hon. Member as part of his own culture. I do not wish to accuse him of being a Philistine, but I had imagined that he would regard music as part of the Celtic culture of Scotland.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has been most helpful but did he say that about half of those affected by the Bill had 20 years' service or more?

Mr. McElhone: I was referring to the special recruitment scheme and those who came in as late entrants.
It has been suggested that the period of three months allowed for the reemployment of promoted teachers is not good enough. In 1969, when the retirement age was reduced to 65, the teachers' unions and local authorities gave that move their unanimous support. In order to open up the promotion log jam the teachers' unions pressed the Secretary of State of the day to allow a reduction to 65. We recognise that today a 65-year-old teacher who is in a promoted post may be engaged to carry on in a non-promoted post if he specialises in a subject in which there is a shortage. It is possible that even a teacher in a promoted post will be a late entrant and get promotion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) referred to the decision about the rector of Dundee High School. That situation has nothing to do with the Bill. The situation of a rector, which is a promoted post, was decided in 1969 when the teaching profession, unions and local authorities were unanimous in the view that a promoted teacher had to retire at 65. I do not believe that the teaching profession in Dundee in particular will say that a rector or principal is irreplaceable. There are plenty of deputies and others who could fill such a position.
Several hon. Members said that teachers should be given compensation if they have not completed a certain length of service. But at present 90 per cent. of teachers voluntarily retire below the age of 65. The argument is that compensation should be paid for loss


of expectations. Section 82 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 makes it clear that a teacher holds his appointment during the pleasure of the education authority. Since there is no vested legal right that has been taken away, there can be no vested legal right to compensation.
The most controversial issue which has been raised by all hon. Members is the starting date of 1st January. That date will leave only a few weeks between Royal Assent and the coming into operation of the measure. Several hon. Members have raised the question of a possible conflict with the Employment Protection Act—a matter which was raised by the SSTA in submissions to hon. Members. The issue is not one of losing a job or of redundancy. It is a question of the time of retirement—a subtle difference. There is no question of a school or factory closing down. All hon. Members will accept that 65 is a good age to retire and that it applies to nearly every job in the country.
Hon. Members also questioned the teachers' contract' and asked whether teachers should be paid to the end of the school holidays. When a teacher decides to leave the service or voluntarily to retire, he normally gives four months' notice to the education authority so that his superannuation can be worked out. But hon. Members did not mention that teachers also get a lump sum after a number of years' service. The average figure last year for men was £6,000—a sizeable sum. The amount is justified but many people in industry who do heavy jobs most of their working lives do not have a job expectation until they are 70 years of age, or even until the next day. They certainly do not receive £6,000 in a lump sum when they retire.
For the year ended 31st March the average pension for a male teacher was £2,165 or £40 a week, and for a woman teacher £1,354. The average lump sum paid to teachers in the same year was £6,158 for men—a sizeable sum by any standards. Many hon. Members who were unfortunate enough to lose their seats would be grateful if they could draw a benefit of that size. The average male pensionable salary for the year ended 31st March this year was £4,985 and for a woman, £3,430.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) talked of List D schools, to which

this Bill does not apply. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked about the distribution of teachers. During his period of office he worked hard on that matter. The director of Strathclyde Education Authority said on 21st October in the Glasgow Herald that in all six areas of the region the staffing was good. He said that the position was comparable with the best in any European country.
We now have the best pupil-teacher ratio we have ever had in Scottish schools. Despite the financial difficulties, teachers' salaries during this Government's period in office have increased by 67 per cent., a sizeable increase by any standard. We must also accept that the primary school figures have been dropping consistently. Strathclyde's primary roll dropped by 7,000 last year, and between 1975–76 and 1979–80 it will drop by over 100,000.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) talked of the Government's not meeting their financial commitments and opting out. He must recognise that for the first time in 30 years we have no part-time education in Glasgow and West Scotland. That is an achievement.
No one is happy about there being unemployed teachers. No one is happy about anyone's being unemployed. But a year or two ago in my area and other areas of Glasgow it was depressing to talk to young people, to find that they had left school with no grades, and to hear them explain "I had a teacher for only half a day". I do not wish to be provocative, but many of us who represented the poorer areas of the city thought that all too often teachers who were supposed to be teaching within the Glasgow Education Authority area opted for the less difficult areas. The East End and parts of my constituency suffered grievously because of the lack of vocation of certain teachers at that time. But I should not be churlish and deny teachers their lump sum and pension. They provide a tremendous service to Scotland, and we look to them to provide the better citizens for the future.
To sum up, it would be wrong to think that we are chasing teachers out of schools, or forcing them to retire, when 90 per cent. retire before the age of 65. A promoted teacher will still have three months to finish the term and not disrupt a school curriculum. A teacher aged over


65 may, with the consent of the local authority, work from year to year—

Mr. Neil Carmichael: Will my hon. Friend consider bringing out one or two points, at least in Committee? He has not mentioned the numbers likely to be affected and the important question, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), of a circular so that there is fairness between the education authorities with regard to those who stay on and those who are forced to leave.

Mr. McElhone: I can tell my hon. Friend, who, I know, takes a great interest in education, that we shall consider any points raised. If I take the Committee stage, I shall consider any suggestion made by hon. Members on either side of the House.
As for any question of lack of consultation, I have had three discussions with the General Secretary of the SSTA and two with representatives of other teachers' unions. Last Thursday I spent a considerable time with the President and General Secretary of the SSTA. We take very seriously all the matters that are raised. We do not have blinkered attitudes to the benefits of the Bill. We are not saying that we have a panacea for the problem of unemployed teachers, but we do say that the Bill is a useful step forward which we hope will take a fair number of unemployed teachers out of the labour exchanges and will continue to do so from year to year.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Younger rose—

Mr. McElhone: I am coming to the very end of my speech. We are not blind to any sugegstions from either side of the House. Hon. Members will always find me very receptive to any worthwhile suggestions that do not cost a great deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision as regards Scotland with respect to the age of retirement of teachers it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in—

(a) the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 or the Superannuation Act 1972; and
(b) rate support grant.—[Mr. Millan.]

VALUATION AND RATING (EXEMPTED CLASSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill follows my announcement on 14th April that I intended to introduce legslation, first, to clarify the rating position of offshore oilfields, oil rigs and installations, and, secondly, to establish that the toll bridges continued to be exempt from rating liability.
With regard to oil installations, three North Sea oil fields lying many miles offshore have already been entered in valuation rolls by local assessors and the action of the assessors is being challenged by the oil companies in the courts. Since the question is sub judice I can say only that the seaward limits of local authority areas are not clearly defined. In consequence, the assessor can establish the rating position of a property only by entering it in his roll, and letting the courts decide the matter on appeal.
Whatever the outcome of the appeals which are pending on the offshore cases, or others which may arise, there is a strong risk that they will do nothing to establish the position generally. In other words, it is possible that, for the time being at least, the courts may have to decide the rating question field by field


and pipeline by pipeline, without the benefit of the Bill. Moreover, local authorities might have differing ideas on the seaward projection of their boundaries and there might be conflict over who should collect the rates. Clearly, we must provide a sure and simple alternative to continuing uncertainty and the expense of litigation for local authorities and oil companies alike.
It is, I think, generally accepted—I know that the view is held in the House—that oil fields and installations should not be liable for local rates. Petroleum operators pay their fair share of taxes in the form of corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax which can amount to 75 per cent: of revenues. They also pay local rates on onshore installations.
The Government have also seen that the public interest is fully protected in offshore exploitation by the establishment of the British National Oil Corporation and by the arrangements made for public participation by BNOC in existing and future licences. Therefore, there is no question but that overall the offshore oil industry pays its fair share of taxation. If we find any defects in existing legislation on these matters, there is ample opportunity to put them right by amendments to corporation tax, petroleum revenue tax and the rest. It has always been my view, and it is certainly the Government's view, that rates should not be paid on offshore installations. The purpose of the Bill is, first, to put that matter beyond legislative doubt.
The exempting powers in the Bill are not limited to petroleum subjects. They will be exercisable in relation to property of any description which lies, at least in part, below low-water mark at ordinary spring tides. This means that the powers will allow the second purpose of the Bill to be implemented, namely, the correction of an error in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
Section 225(8) of that Act nullified all local Act provisians relating to valuation and rating and so deprived the Forth and Tay road bridges, which are local authority undertakings, of rating exemptions. That was not intended by the 1973 Act. It was one of those mistakes which sometimes happen, and it has to be rectified if we are not to find the Forth and Tay road bridges subject to local rates.
I am sure that no hon. Member would welcome the effect which that would have on the tolls for those bridges. There is a good deal of agitation for the removal of tolls, and, so far as I am aware, no substantial pressure group either in the House or elsewhere for the increase of tolls. If the exemptions are not restored, the tolls might have to be about doubled to meet the rate bills which might eventually ensue. We do not want that to happen, and the Bill provides a vehicle to enable me to ensure that it does not.
I have explained the provisions of the Bill only briefy since it is, I think, uncontroversial. There may be points about the drafting and particular provisions which hon. Members will wish to raise in Committee, and my hon. Friend and I will be happy to deal with such matters then.
I come now to the general structure of the Bill. Clause I confers on me as Secretary of State the power to prescribe by order types of rateable property which are to be excluded from the valuation roll, with the result that they will be exempt from rates. In other words, it gives me a flexible power, but an order may affect only lands and heritages which lie wholly or partly on, over, or under the bed of the sea. Hon. Members will note that that definition covers not only offshore oil installations but the two bridges as well.

Mr. John Corrie: Would this cover an oil rig being built in a rig building yard out in deep water and so below low-water mark—at Hunterston for instance?

Mr. Millan: The normal process is that the initial stages of building, whatever kind of structure it may be, take place onshore, or certainly at the edge of the shore, and it would not be my intention that that would be excluded from rating liability. However, once the structure had been moved out, whether to be completed or to be installed eventually somewhere in the North Sea, it would be my intention that the structure should not then be rated. I am not trying to deprive local authorities of rates which they should legitimately have. The Bill is drafted to enable me, with the approval of the House, to deal flexibly with particular circumstances. It would be difficult to write all such matters into the Bill and


be sure that we had the correct answer. That is why the procedure of prescription by order has been decided upon.
I was saying that I may make one of these orders for lands and heritages which lie wholly or partly on, over or under the bed of the sea. In the order I can also prescribe complete or partial exemption.
There has to be an element of retrospection in the Bill as the House will recognise, because there are oilfields already on the valuation rolls. They are subject to dispute, but they are there, and the order-making power will in the first instance, therefore, allow exemption to be extended to the year 1975–76, which means going back a bit. Subsection (2) adjusts the power to back-date exemptions to the power of the assessor to back-date valuation roll entries under Section 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975.
The only other point I should mention about Clause 1, which I hope is reasonably self-explanatory, is that the exempting power is subject to strict parliamentary control under the affirmative resolution procedure. That is provided for under subsection (7).
Clause 2 contains a procedural provision which will allow me to direct assessors to refrain from valuing a property which might be covered by a proposed exemption. This is to prevent unnecessary complications arising by having property valued, and a whole lot of procedures gone through to nugatory effect because it is intended that there should be an exemption. Under Clause 2 I can give a direction to prevent that happening, but in so doing I am under a commitment, in the terms of the clause, as soon as possible after giving such a direction to tell the assessors whether an order is to be made; and, if no order is to be made, I have to revoke the direction. In other words, Clause 2 is a holding provision to prevent unnecessary work and to allow the question of exemption to be considered before matters have gone too far.
I think that the Bill has been generally accepted as a sensible measure. It will, I hope, put a complicated piece of valuation law on a firm footing, though doing it in a flexible way. I commend the Bill to the House.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Our view on this Bill is the same as our view on the Retirement of Teachers (Scotland) Bill—that we do not oppose it in principle, although, since it is a complicated measure, there are several questions to be raised.
No doubt, when right hon. and hon. Members heard reference to offshore structures, a good many had the word "hybrid" cross their minds. I am sure that this is not a hybrid Bill, but I want an explanation of Clause 1(8). This is a most unusual subsection. I imagine that there may be a precedent for it, but I should like to know, since it provides that, if an order is made exempting a particular category of oil rig, oilfield or bridge from rating, and that might well be within the category of private legislation which should be referred to a Private Bill Committee, whereas the subsection provides that, irrespective of that, the order would go through the Public Bill procedure.
In such circumstances—one recalls here what happened over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill—one side of the House might take the view that there was a case for suspending Standing Orders, and it seems unusual that we are, in effect, providing that Standing Orders are suspended in all such cases before matters are considered. Why do we have subsection (8)? Is it necessary, and is there a precedent?
Second, bearing in mind that the Bill covers a wide range of subjects, although the Minister said that he intends to use it only in a certain respect, it would be helpful to know the extent of the rateable value which could be affected by the Bill. Certain things which have been entered on valuation rolls will be removed. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) said to me earlier today, it seems that the Bill could be used as a device for taking out of the valuation roll things which have been there for many years and about which there has been no contest or dispute—for example, moorings, wharves, quays and even salmon fisheries, to which we shall come later. It seems that this provision could be used as a means for taking out of the valuation roll things which are there now, and this could seriously


affect the rate poundage in areas where such land or properties appear on the valuation roll.
I raise that matter with special force because there is a desperately serious rating problem in Scotland today. On Thursday last, the Secretary of State told me that the average householder in Scotland is paying £123 in rates this year compared with only £64 five years ago. The burden of rates per head of population has risen from £42 to £86, and all the indications are that this year there will be a further substantial rise. We know that the Secretary of State intends to exempt certain oilfields, oil platforms and bridges, but what other things, which are included in the valuation rolls, could be exempted?
It has been made clear both here and in another place that the object of the Bill is to ensure that the benefits of oil revenue accrue to the nation as a whole and not to particular areas of Britain or to particular regional or district authorities. I wonder whether the Secretary of State might not have a major problem in implementing the orders because of the Government's proposals to establish a Scottish Assembly. The congestion of parliamentary business has caused this possibility to recede a little, but the Government are committed to introducing legislation and I should like to know whether the Assembly will have to approve the orders. If the Assembly refuses to approve an order, would the Government have power to overturn that decision?
There are some people in Scotland and some political parties who do not believe that oil revenues should accrue to the benefit of Britain as a whole. If the people of Scotland are deluded into giving them substantial support in the Assembly elections, we might have misguided assessors and Scottish National representatives in the Assembly ensuring that the oil companies have to pay substantial sums in rates—which could cause considerable damage to the industry and to Scotland as a whole. Are the Government not creating a very difficult problem for themselves in view of the legislation which appears to be coming forward on the Assembly?
Are these orders entirely matters for Parliament and the Secretary of State or

would the Assembly be involved? If the Assembly refused to approve an order, could Parliament or the Secretary of State do something about it? Serious problems might arise if a local assessor decided to rate all oilfields, platforms and associated works and the Government order to overturn his decision was rejected by the Scottish Assembly.
The Secretary of State said that the seaward limits of local authorities had not been closely defined. I was surprised to read in Clause 3(2):
Nothing in this Act or in any order made or direction given thereunder shall be construed as extending the limits of the area of a local authority for any purpose.
How do local authority boundaries extend into the sea? Is this made clear in the Bill or in previous legislation? Some items in or partly in the sea are rated and will continue to be rated, but how do rate charges extend into the sea?
There are a number of possibilities. A straight line might be drawn into the sea from the ends of the local authority areas, or the boundary between areas could be extended into the sea. Some people, such as the Scottish nationalists, talk about the possibility of independence for Scotland, which many of my hon. Friends and I would resist bitterly, because we believe in a united Britain. However, the question of boundaries in relation to North Sea oil is very important. If the Scottish boundary with England were extended into the sea in a straight line rather than following the curve which the actual boundary follows, it would result in a different share-out of North Sea oil between the two countries. Have the Government got this problem of local authority areas sorted out? If not, will they make sure that it is done in Committee?
Do the Government intend to exempt fish farming? That would be possible under the Bill. The Secretary of State indicated that he would be exempting only oilfields and bridges, but there is a strong case for the exemption of fish farms. Because of the Government's inadequacy in protecting British and Scottish fishing interests, there has been a dramatic rise in the price of fish and there is the possibility of major problems in future. We have had to concentrate increasingly on fish farming in Scotland.


I understand that it is now very big business. About 900 tons of trout a year are produced in Scotland by fish farming and one of these splendid companies is producing 200 tons of salmon by intensive methods.
More than £1 million has been spent by the Government on research into fish farming. I understand that these unfortunate fish have to live in floating cages or fenced-off enclosures. I should not like to live in such places, but fish is being produced in that way because it is considered to be a good way of providing food for the nation and food will be a major problem for us in future, as I have constantly warned my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and others.
I understand that agricultural land and even agricultural dwellings have special treatment for rating purposes. When I visited the island of Luing, I found it very difficult to establish what was an agricultural dwelling. It seemed that almost every place on the island was an agricultural dwelling. No doubt the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick), who is not here at the moment, could explain this situation. If we give special treatment to agriculture, can we not make a similar provision for fish farming, which will be a major and expanding industry in Scotland and which should be safeguarded?
Although I am making what appear to be criticisms, I point out that no one on this side of the House will disagree with the principle that the oil industry has had about all it can take from this Government and that the imposition of an additional rate burden could do great damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who has spoken so eloquently about the oil industry on so many occasions, knows that the development of oil would have been improved, with more beneficial effects for Scotland, if the burdens and threats imposed upon the industry by the Government had been removed.
Oil companies have been working under the uncertainty and threat of nationalisation and participation. They have had a substantial petroleum revenue tax imposed upon them and also have to pay corporation tax. The net result has been that the people who believed that oil

would be a cash and jobs bonanza now see that in some tragic instances there are oil platform yards without orders and a great feeling of anxiety among the oil companies about the future and about Government policy.
With all the uncertainties being faced by the industry, it would be wrong to allow another uncertainty by insisting that rates should be paid on oilfields and platforms. We support the Bill in principle, but there are many questions which we shall be hoping to ask the Government in Committee.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have serious objections to the Bill as drafted. I agree with the Secretary of State that rating in the sea needs clarification. I also agree that oil platforms and installations far out to sea are already adequately taxed. But the Bill would appear to go far beyond that.
I understand that the long established principle of rating is that the general principle is laid down by Parliament and that the matter is then handled by the assessors as purely independent administrators, subject to the courts. The Bill gives power to the Secretary of State for a particular purpose. I ask the House to think very seriously whether we should overthrow a long established principle of rating because we run into difficulty in a particular matter. The repercussions may be great.
The Bill applies not only to lands and heritages which lie below the bed of the sea beyond low tide, but to lands and heritages which lie partly below the bed of the sea at low tide. Therefore, some of the Sullom Voe jetties in my constituency could be excluded from rating. Oil installations and oil-related installations which have pipelines and other parts below low water mark could also be exempted. For example, all the single buoy moorings and many other installations within Scapa Flow would be exempted.
The Bill is not only concerned with oil. Every pier and installation on or connected to that pier from a point above high water mark to a point below low water mark could be exempted from rating. I hope that the House will not think that it is all right because the Secretary of State says that he will not


use his power in this way. We should be drafting precise legislation. Something unforeseen may happen. We know that experiments are going on with the use of the waves and tides for generating energy. These may extend below low water mark and come under the Bill as drafted. Fish farming has been mentioned. That, too, might come under the Bill. The provision that the Bill applies to heritages and lands which lie partly on the bed of the sea below low water mark is extremely wide and should be resisted.
We are told that any order will be subject to the affirmative procedure. But Parliament should not pass what I regard as sloppily drafted legislation aimed at a particular purpose, but going much wider and then get out of it by providing that it will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is a bad way to legislate. We know about the affirmative procedure—the Government put down a motion, puts on the Whips and that is the end of that. I am not reconciled to the Bill by that provision.
I understand that the Crown Commissioners charge a wayleave for oil pipes on the bed of the sea below low water mark. I do not know what happens above low water mark. In my part of the country, any operations above low water mark come under a udal law and the proprietors control the bed of the sea. I am informed that the Crown Commissioners levy a wayleave up to three miles and that three miles is accepted as the general jurisdiction, except in the matter of fishing rights as far as territorial waters are concerned. I think that the Government should have brought forward a Bill which exempted from rating the bed of the sea beyond three miles. That would have been perfectly satisfactory. It would exempt all the installations, platforms, pipes and deep water operations which they want to exempt. The only objection is that it might not cover the Forth and Tay bridges. However, I am informed that could be done by an amendment to local government Acts.
I beg the House to consider long before passing the Bill. It is extraordinary that the Bill should have been introduced at the end of July in the House of Lords. It introduces an entirely new principle in Scottish rating and will have a wide

effect in my constituency and elsewhere. The Bill is badly drafted to achieve the purpose which the Secretary of State has in mind. I recommend that he takes away the Bill and reintroduces it in the next Session when it can be properly considered. It should be made much simpler to exempt installations beyond three miles or, if the Government wish, to make it two miles and make special provision or the Forth or Tay bridges.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: I welcome the Government's intention in introducing the Bill. It is necessary that they should reassure the oil companies that they will not be further penalised for the gamble that they took which, at the end of the day, will probably be in the interests of all our people.
I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the fact that the Bill will cover the rating of toll bridges. What puzzles me is the way in which the Bill is worded and its implementation by means of statutory instruments. It would have been simpler to have a straightforward Bill exempting these two matters. That would have been clear and easily understood by everyone. But this way it becomes complicated.
If the main purpose of the Bill is to reassure the oil companies that they will not in future be charged rates, why is it necessary in Clause 1(9) to provide that the Secretary of State shall have power to revoke or alter it in any way? That is not much of a reassurance to people who want to explore for, to find and to market oil. They may not be reassured by being told that there is a Bill exempting them from rates, but which can be revoked or changed at any time.
I was reassured at the thought of the remote possibility of rating the Tay bridge, for example. If the Bill can subsequently be revoked or altered by a statutory instrument, it does not seem a very clear assurance. We should make the matter clear beyond doubt and make it as simple as possible.
In Clause 1(4) we find:
In this subsection 'rates' includes domestic water rates.
What is the purpose of that provision? If there is any danger of these people being charged for domestic water rates,


it brings up the question: what happens now? I know some people near where I live who have garages with no water supply other than a rain water barrel. Yet they are charged water rates. If they can be charged in those circumstances—namely, that it is assumed that at some time they will use water to wash their cars—is it not an equally fair assumption that the people on an oil rig will use water? If we are to charge one group, why not charge the other group?
Everyone should get the same treatment. That does not happen at present. Some, places charge water rates and others do not. An oil rig probably uses quite a large amount of water which will, presumably, come from Scotland. Is the oil rig to get that water completely free of charge? The company to which the oil rig belongs might not pay rates anywhere in Scotland. Is it right that it should be completely exempt from water rates?
Far from making the Bill clearer and simpler, as it is supposed to do, the interpretation clause makes it more difficult. For example, I read in Clause 3(1):
'the sea' means any area seaward of the lowest point to which the tide ebbs at ordinary spring tides and includes any estuary, arm of the sea and the waters of any channel, creek, bay or river seaward of that lowest point".
I wonder how many people understand that and know what it means in any given area.
During the passage of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill I asked a similar question. No one seemed to know where the tide started and where it stopped or about high tide, spring tide and any other tide. I doubt whether anyone knows what the interpretation clause means. Lawyers might be able to settle differences of opinion in court, but the legislation we produce should not make it necessary for lawyers to be engaged and money to be wasted in going to court. That is all very well when something unforeseen arises but the purpose of the interpretation clause is to make matters easily understood, and hardly anyone understands it.
If we exempt from rates oilfields and toll bridges, why not go the whole hog

and exempt from rates all buildings in Scotland? The Government already pay 75 per cent, of the total rates, and it costs a great deal of money to administer the rating system, which is in any case unfair. A person who leaves his car in the street pays no rates but if he builds a garage to take it off the streets he has to pay rates on the garage. A person who installs double glazing to save fuel, as the Government want, has to pay higher rates. Why not go the whole hog and abolish rates? The Government's contribution to the rates has crept up from 50 per cent, to 75 per cent. Will their contribution have to reach 99 per cent, before they decide to abolish rates and thereby make greater savings?
Property owned by the Government is exempted from rates. For instance, hospitals pay no rates—at least that is the theory. They make a contribution in lieu of rates. The only difference is that the contribution in lieu of rates is not fixed by an assessor and cannot be appealed against if it is thought to be unfair. In my constituency the Treasury valuer calculated that the contribution in lieu of rates made by Ninewells Hospital should be on a rateable value of 3 per cent, of the capital cost. The rateable value is £405,000 and the amount paid in rates is £660,000. That works out at £20 per patient per week. This is a serious disincentive to building new hospitals or other buildings. If a building is replaced by one of better design which will make savings, those savings are wiped out by the rate increase. There is no incentive to replace old buildings.
I give an example. A laundry was built in Ninewells Hospital to cater for all the big hospitals in the area. The rateable value of the laundry alone was £15,000. The total rateable value of the Dundee Royal Infirmary—comparable in size to Ninewells Hospital—was only £11,000.
It is high time that the Secretary of State examined the entire rating system with all its anomalies and, not necessarily in this Bill but in another rating Bill, removed the anomalies and made the rating system fairer. The easiest way to do that is to abolish the entire rating system.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I suppose that this is the best time to enter my


protest that the Bill should come to us so late in the Session. I cannot recall a Bill starting its way through the House of Commons at the tail end of the Session. It might have happened before but I have not found a precedent. If the tables were reversed between the two parties, there would be no chance of a Conservative Government's being allowed to put through a Bill, however beneficial, if it were introduced at this late stage in the Session, because Scottish Labour Members would make sure that they were not. We are being remarkably accommodating in agreeing that this measure should go through. Those few sentences in future years may be useful for me to quote to Labour Members if ever the situation should be reversed.
Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am unhappy at the circumstances of and the principle behind the Bill, although I appreciate that its narrow purpose is desirable and that we must therefore help it on its way.
With the Government's being in their present position with the financing and taxation of the North Sea oil, there can be no question of our allowing a great extra burden of rating to be put on oil companies and oil rigs. By introducing petroleum revenue tax and other fiscal measures, the Government of their own choosing have put such a large burden of taxation on the oil companies that there can be no question of our agreeing to increase that burden by allowing them to be rated.
By their sweeping taxation policy on the oil companies the Government have pre-empted to themselves all the available revenue from the oil drilling rigs at sea so that there is nothing left for the nearby local authorities. This may be the right principle but we have not arrived at it in the right way. We have arrived at it because the Government have imposed all the taxation they can on these oil installations and there is nothing left for the local authority, even if we should all decide tonight that it was right that some form of rating should take place.
We have got here the wrong way, but having got here I feel that they cannot be expected to pay heavy sums in rates as well. The conclusion I draw from

this, which I hope the Minister will note for future reference, is that the Government—having now pre-empted to themselves all the available blood which could be sucked from the oil companies in their drilling operations—have all the greater obligation to provide assistance to local authorities who have exceptional types of expenditure in connection with oil development. This gives us a very strong moral argument to use on the Government if there is any question of their being laggard in the provision of extra special assistance to local authorities who have vast housing problems to deal with or extra road problems or whatever. I hope that the Minister will note that he can expect to receive pressure from us from time to time, and I shall use this as evidence.
Nor am I happy about the principle, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, of openly bringing in this legislation with the intention of applying it only, as far as I can make out, to very limited categories. I have made clear how I feel about the oil rigs and I entirely agree that the Forth and Tay road bridges, and the Erskine bridge, should be exempted because we never intended that they should have to pay rates. It is not a happy way to proceed. Why should we introduce legislation to exempt particular installations which are on or above the sea and include many others in the rating system? I cannot see that, as a matter of principle, it is proper to exempt bridges or oil rigs and still expect fish farms, for instance, to be rated, because they are just as much over or under the waters of the sea as other installations.
Moorings have been mentioned. Moorings in certain parts of the country—perhaps not to the same extent in Scotland but certainly in many places south of the border—are heavily rated. They are very expensive. What is the position regarding houseboats? Although we do not have many boats in Scotland, there are some, and people who live in houseboats, or make a boat their permanent home, are certainly on or above the water. One hopes that they are also above the low water mark if they want to float satisfactorily. They will have cause to think that they are being discriminated against if the big, powerful oil companies, or the Government themselves, should


exempt themselves while a few small people who inhabit houseboats find themselves having to pay rates.
The same goes for the fish farmers, some of whom are doing very well, and are reasonably prosperous, but others of whom may not be doing so well. Why should they have to pay rates while their neighbours, because they are big and powerful and part of the oil industry, do not? Why should they be picked on in this way?
I do not know whether the Minister has thought through the question of bridges and whether these toll bridges are the only bridges involved. Are there any other bridges in Scotland which are not owned by the local authority, or whatever, but are privately owned and rated? I can think of some circumstances in which there could be, and I wonder whether these bridges, if they are over water, which is tidal, will be exempted or not.
I hope that the Minister will also make the position quite clear regarding piers. Legislation affecting piers is already in a muddle. Every pier in Scotland seems to be affected by a different Act of Parliament. During my time at the Scottish Office I was anxious to see whether I could do something about it but the number of different Acts was very great and it was a massive job. I hope we can now get some clarity from the Minister about whether piers are likely to be included in an order under the Bill or whether he has decided that no piers will be included. Perhaps he could also indicate to us what a future Secretary of State, who may be somebody quite different, will be able to do under this Act in respect of piers. Would he be able to pick on certain private piers and make them pay rates and exempt all those which are publicly owned, or vice versa?
This legislation is riddled with small questions of detail and I wonder whether it has been properly thought out. I would also express my concern at the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the matter of principle involved. I have never been a great friend of the rating system. I have always thought—and still think—that the rating system has reached a stage

where it is unrealistic and difficult for ordinary people to understand and that it is time it was brushed aside.
That apart, I think that to tamper with the impartiality of the system is something which should be carefully undertaken and only after very careful thought. Surely the role of Parliament in this respect is to lay down the general principle that properties domestic, properties commercial and properties industrial will be rated under certain principles. To introduce legislation without the most careful thought, and to pick and choose certain types of installations which will be differently treated, or not rated at all, seems to be a major interference with that principle. Once the general law is laid down, the assessors, and those who work with them have a completely impartial role to perform. As a result of this legislation we are now likely to have assessors, or their local authority masters, looking through the installations in their areas trying to find installations which might be rated. Other interests press the Secretary of State to exempt further particular types of installation under this legislation.
I am certain that in the short time we have had to debate the Bill tonight we shall not have thought of all the examples. We have thought of houseboats, moorings and fish farms but I am sure many others will crop up. We ought to have some idea from the Minister whether he has looked into this in depth and whether he has satisfied himself that he can limit this legislation, or the effects of it, to the relatively small number of items he has outlined to us. It is a dangerous idea to produce broad legislation like this to deal with specific detailed problems. It should not be done unless it is thought through.
I would end on a slightly less sour note and hope that the long delay in coming to the House is because the Government have taken all this time to think the Bill through. I should be optimistic to think that.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: I can see the Government's point in trying to clarify the valuation and rating position of the oil companies. After all, it is important that there should not be a plethora of tax-collecting bodies


dealing with those companies. None the less I sense that we are feeling our way in talking about bad valuation problems.
Although we tend to talk about oil companies at the moment, there is little doubt that in the years to come, with the discovery of more mineral deposits on the seabed, this problem will grow. At the moment the South of Scotland Electricity Board is already looking for uranium deposits near the Orkney coastline. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), with his knowledge of local government finance matters and his past experience as a city treasurer, put his finger on the very real problem by asking when are we to embark on the reorganisation of local government finance?
That inspires one of the three points that I want to make. Unfortunately, no oil has yet been discovered in the Firth of Clyde, where it could obviously have a beneficial effect on industrial prospects. However, in the areas which have onshore installations there is considerable pressure on the rating system and on the infrastructure, which must add to local authority costs. If local authorities, mainly on the eastern seaboard, face increasing costs for this reason, it must follow that there will be less money for areas like Clydeside on the western seaboard.
At the best of times, the division of the rate support grant among regional and district authorities is a mystery. Local authorities coping with problems such as those I have mentioned should have some financial recompense.
My second point concerns jurisdiction. The Secretary of State said that there had been some disputes or uncertainties about the areas for which the assessors might be responsible. As an official of the region, an assessor comes within the same authority as the police. What about the burden placed on the rates because of extra calls by police forces to deal with incidents on North Sea installations?
My third point relates to the changes taking place in the law of the sea. Presumably there will be additional calls on the police and various local services when the territorial waters are extended from three to, presumably, 12 miles. Minerals and other deposits of wealth on

the ocean bed form an important economic zone around these shores which must be policed. This will put more pressures and responsibilities on local authorities. The Minister should therefore say something about how some revenues from the ocean bed will find their way into local authority finances. This will become a much bigger problem in future than many of us now realise.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) was right to say that this is an important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was even more right when he said that the reason for its late introduction was the congested state of the Government's programme. I associate myself with those remarks.
If the Bill is important today it was equally important six months ago; the only reason that it was not introduced then is that the Government had totally congested their legislative programme with vile legislation which is only now receiving its just desserts in another place. One can only hope that the Government will learn their lesson on this occasion and that next Session they will restrict their legislation to important Bills such as this.
It has been the custom in the past for valuations to be made by assessors. The Bill probably came about because one or two assessors decided to include on the valuation roll some oil-related offshore features. The matter could have been decided only by legislation or by a court, and the Government are probably right to choose the legislative course.
The Continental Shelf is a very difficult subject and will no doubt be discussed here many times in future. We note with interest that the Bill will be virtually controlled by affirmative resolution procedures. I sympathise with the queries of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about this procedure.
When it comes to oil fields and platforms, the oil industry is already well provided with taxation. I took part in debates on the Bill which introduced the


petroleum revenue tax. The oil companies also face corporation tax and 12½ per cent, royalties. It would have been outrageous to subject them to yet another tax in the form of rates. I therefore agree with the principle of the Bill.
When we talk about oil companies, we think mainly of multinational concerns which have very little interest in the country in which they operate. But that has not been our experience in Scotland. The companies which have explored the North Sea so far have played a vital role in not only the repopulation but the rejuvenation of Scotland. Many jobs have been created—not only by the British National Oil Corporation or any nationalised body but by private enterprise. That trend should be encouraged. I hope that later tonight hon. Members will join me in an attempt to achieve the investment of £150 million of private capital in the Highlands.
The companies which have so far set up in Scotland and played their part in developing North Sea oil have brought benefits to a considerable area of the country. However, the hon. Member for Maryhill was quite right when he said that it was all very well for us to accept what these revenues are at a national level but that when people know that oil is being discovered and extracted not too far away from their coastline, they naturally like to see just how much of the benefit of that is reaching their part of the country.
While I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman when he says that no oil has so far been found in the Firth of Clyde—I am sure that we hope it will not be too long before that area participates as well—we must realise that at the same time the demands of ratepayers in areas in which oil has been discovered are considerable. The Government do not always contribute as much to those authorities' overheads as we should like.
We must also accept that the areas most affected in this way have very often been sparsely populated rural areas. Therefore, the amount per capita that they have had to contribute has been that much higher. We must bear that in mind when talking about the rates in oil-related areas.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I am disappointed that the Government did not use the opportunity presented by this small Bill for covering the much maligned fish farming projects in Britain. There is no doubt that fish farming is accepted by the national farmers' unions and by practically everyone other than the Government as similar to agriculture, and why it should be penalised as it is is beyond our reckoning.
I want to ask the Minister some questions. The first is about platforms under construction and their rating. When a platform from, for example, Kishorn in Wester Ross is floated out, at what point does it cease to be liable for rates? In the event of a steel platform being floated out from Nigg Bay to a point a few miles offshore and being completed at that point, is it free from rates from the moment that it goes offshore? Perhaps the Minister will deal with the question of the three-mile, 12-mile, 50-mile or even 200-mile limit that has been discussed.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to jetties at Sullom Voe. In my constituency we hope in due course to have jetties of a similar nature. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments about those.
I broadly welcome the Bill. We accept that it was necessary. I reiterate that it is a pity that the Government were not able to introduce it some months ago However, basically we welcome the principle of the Bill.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I welcome in particular the part of the Bill dealing with the exemption of toll bridges from valuation. There was quite a shock to those users of the Tay and Forth road bridges when it became apparent that the assessors intended to try to ensnare those two bridges and those who use them within the rating framework, because that would undoubtedly have led to an increase in the tolls. Admittedly, the money raised would have gone to the local authorities on either side of the bridges, but, in view of all the pressures placed upon them, there is no guarantee that the money collected would be put back into the same account and would


thus keep the toll charges at the pre-valuation figure.
I am, however, rather more unhappy about some aspects of the Bill relating to offshore constructions. I can accept that there is no logic in trying to extend the valuation system to mineral deposits such as oilfields or the platforms that are exhausting those oilfields or, indeed, to submarine pipelines—although I admit that the nearer a pipeline gets to the shore, the more it is arguable that that pipeline should or could be included in the valuation roll as a heritable subject. The reason why I accept that the subjects should not be included in the rolls is that they are serviced very distantly from the land. Those local authorities which, if they were lucky in pressing their cases, managed to get them on their valuation roll might be getting a benefit for which they had provided no service.
Let me take as an example the Forties oilfield That can be serviced from Dundee, as it is, yet by being nearer to some other region, perhaps, the benefit from the rating could go to a region that had no connection whatever with that field. That would lead us into all sorts of peculiar circumstances and, as the Seccretary of State has rightly said, into problems of demarcation.
One of the problems is that each assessor would attempt, perhaps at different times, to carve out a share of the action for his or her particular local authority. These cases would come before the lands valuation court at different times. It might not be possible for that court to consider all the cases at the same time and lay down the rules under which the oilfields or platforms concerned could be equitably shared among the regional councils concerned. Therefore, I accept the first part of the intention of the Bill.
Assessors, however, are very enterprising people. They conduct a continual war to get as many subjects as they can on to the valuation roll. It is not often appreciated that they are independent officers. Indeed, in the past assessors have tried to take into the roll subjects that local authorities would have been perfectly happy to have seen excluded. Here I take the example of the two toll bridges, where the local authorities concerned were horrified at the prospect of

these bridges being on the valution roll and of getting additional revenue, because they could see the lunacy of that business.
On the other hand, the assessors have the job of interpreting the valuation Acts. If they are up to the job, they should try to get what can be defined as "heritable" placed on the roll. When the news first broke in the Press that oilfields and the huge platforms beside them would possibly be rated, many folk immediately thought that here was a bonanza. We are all paying very high rates these days. The thought that a substantial source of new revenue could come to a local authority must have lifted many a heart just as the bills for last year's rates were being paid.
However, I should have thought the main attempt of the assessors to include these subjects on the roll doomed to failure. We may find out that they were capable of being included if the assessors maintained the entries in the rolls and the cases were fought through. However, I think that these cases will be abandoned now in view of the Bill. We shall never know whether those subjects could have been included. I have serious reservations about that.
My principal doubts about the effect of the Bill are in relation to the definition that has been employed. I accept the view put by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) that the simplest way of tackling the two road bridges would have been to have a specific exemption by name of those two structures. Had that been done, it would probably have been of help to the parliamentary draftsmen when trying to deal with the other subjects that the Government had in mind.
I suspect that trouble could ensue when we come to deal with the word "partly". It is a word on which assessors and courts will latch in a flash. It is similar to the word "reasonable". Once lawyers come into the picture, the meaning of such words can be argued in many different ways. A similar problem arose in the 1930s over the Workmen's Compensation Acts and subsequently when dealing with the law of reparation there were difficulties of interpretation over the word "reasonable".
I give a few examples of the difficulties involved in the use of the word


"partly". What is "partly under water", "partly on shore", and "partly off shore"? Many piers and jetties have already been rated, so far with little objection. This may be a Committee point, but I hope that the Government will seriously examine the possible effects of the word "partly".
The word may have been included in the Bill to take care of the situation involving the two bridges. But if the subject of the two bridges is dealt with specifically, the word "partly" may be capable of omission. If the word exists in the Bill for some other reason, it behoves the Government to explain why and to say what sort of property they hope to catch under the Bill. I presume that the word must have been included for a reason, and therefore the answer should be readily available.
A genuine point has been made concerning the benefits to be given to regions which have to deal with the problems involved in catering for the build-up of the oil industry. Some benefit is given by means of additional employment gained in certain regions, but it is also true that a number of regions are adversely affected by some developments. For example, Tayside until recently has not done well in employment terms, and, indeed, has suffered because of the incidence of heavy traffic rumbling through the area and carrying materials to northern areas. That traffic follows the Perth-Forfar route, despite gallant efforts by the Scottish Office to steer it in other directions. The roads in question have not been trunked, and therefore the cost of repairs has been met by the regional council. That will mean a heavy cost to be borne by ratepayers.
There are other examples of extra costs, such as policing and the build-up of housing. At least the Government must be given credit, because in certain instances they have channelled additional resources through the SSHA to cover some of the extra expenditure. There are many other aspects related to oil development where the benefits do not return to the residents and where help could be afforded by specific Government grants. In these circumstances some thought should be given to assistance being afforded by the Government.
I wish to refer to structures which are—I shall not use the word "partly"—marginally offshore. I am not thinking of platforms which have been completed in a loch, such as on the Sound of Raasay, which will only be in position for a short period. I am referring to installations of a more permanent nature that will be in position possibly for more than a year.
A floating dock may be moored to the sea bed offshore and be serviced from a base, again offshore. Additional expense could be caused to the local authority by the existence of that feature offshore, and it is only right that part of the cost of servicing that object should be borne through the raising of additional rates by inclusion of such a structure on the valuation roll.
The principle of rates when first evolved was to allow local authorities to meet the cost of local services, but as local government has become more sophisticated that first principle has been left behind. Nevertheless, in valuation questions that is still a sound approach.
I wish to draw attention to Clause 2(1) the provisions of which could be considered to be unacceptable. Normally, Acts lay down specific definitions, powers and terms of which the subject is aware. Frequently such provisions are not capable of easy explanation or understanding, but the principle has been accepted that Acts of Parliament should be as specific and detailed as possible so that the individual citizen may be aware of his rights. However, I fear that Clause 2(1) is intended to be a blanket clause, so that if any new subject emerges that is not covered by the legislation, the Secretary of State may enter immediately, slap on a directive, and follow it later by an order. I do not think that is the best way of tackling legislation.
I turn to costs in respect of the oil companies. I suspect that if this Bill had not appeared, the oil companies would not have ended up by paying rates on the major part of their installations. The Government have rushed in in an attempt to tackle the situation. If rates had been payable to the local authority, I am sure that they would have been capable of being set off against a company's petrol revenue tax, corporation tax, or whatever it may be. The loser


at the end of the day would probably be the Treasury.
Perhaps the Bill is intended not to protect the oil companies, which are well able to defend their own interests in the courts, so much as to protect the Treasury from having to pay out more money to local authorities at a time when, unfortunately, their plans are being cut back because of the Government's failure correctly to manage the economy.

8.18 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: As the southern end of the Tay bridge is in my constituency, and as every time I conic to Parliament I cross the Forth bridge. I am delighted that the Government are taking steps to ensure that rates are not to be paid. However, I join in the protests made by other hon. Members about the way in which this is to be done.
We are now engaged in the operation of trying to cut down unnecessary administrative work involving the recruitment of more civil servants. But the main part of this Bill lies in Clause 1(1) which refers to
an order made by the Secretary of State under this section
This will mean that people will be required to undertake the work of making such orders which are to be laid before Parliament, and all the rest of it.
Some hon. Members suggest that all that is necessary in regard to the bridges is to pass an Act providing that the status quo should be resumed. They suggest that that would put the situation right in one stroke. But will the Government have to pay large sums of money to subsidise uneconomic passenger transport crossing a railway bridge? That seems to be an anomaly.
Other hon. Members have spoken about fish farming and other areas of activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) mentioned platforms built under the water. I have visted a rig building yard and have seen one construction being built below high water mark. I should have thought that such a construction would qualify, whereas the construction in my area at Methil built by Redpath Dorman Long well above high water mark and floated out would be outside these provisions. I hope that consideration

will be given to this question and to what happens if oil is found onshore as opposed to offshore.
We already hear of oil being found fairly close inshore off Brora and there seems to be no reason why, in a few years' time, we should not be finding oil below the surface of the land. If we get exemption from rating for those installations offshore, will the same thing apply to them on the land? I hope that in Committee the Government will be receptive to the idea of making alterations to the Bill which will do everything possible to cut down the administrative costs stemming from its present wording.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I welcome the final words of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and I was pleased to see that at least we are not to have any more public expenditure or extra civil servants as a result of this Bill. These days that is always welcome.
In welcoming the Bill broadly, like all my hon. Friends, I emphasise two points. First, of course we support the Bill because not to do so would be to place yet a further burden upon the oil companies. That might well be the final straw to break their backs or it might discourage others. They have had a lot to put up with from the Secretary of State for Energy.
Rating would be an intolerable burden for the companies because of the financial measures which have already been placed upon them by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) made a good point when he said that the effect of all this has been to centralise financial control in Westminster. As some hon. Members may know, I intend to oppose the proposals for a Scottish Assembly when they come along. I would have preferred to see an act of genuine decentralisation here which might have been effected by giving to local authorities the power to spend the revenue raised by rating rigs and so on—had this been possible, which of course it is not because of the economic burdens already placed upon industry. If it had been possible, it would have been an act of genuine decentralisation and devolution which would have taken the power from Whitehall and nut it back into the regions, which is what we


ought to be striving for. In other words—decentralisation, yes; Scottish Assembly, no.
This Bill would have been an opportunity for the Government to put flesh on that principle of decentralisation. But yet again we are centralising in Westminster the financial apron strings by which the industry is to be controlled. This point has particular application to my own constituency and to the Grampian Region in which it lies. Grampian is extremely short of money. No other region in Scotland runs its economic affairs better than Grampian but we all know that at this time everyone is short of money and particularly Grampian, with all that it has to provide by way of infrastructure to support the oil industry.
The region could have used extra revenue, and who better to provide it than those who were the cause of the revenue being needed, namely, the oil companies? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) mentioned the problem that arises with the roads, and related that to Tayside. I know that he would not deny that this continues into Grampian. If the hon. Member has been in Aberdeen recently he will know that there are certain areas of the city through which it is impossible to travel at any reasonable speed because of juggernauts, oil-related traffic and so on. Yet the city of Aberdeen and the Grampian Region have not been able to deal with these problems because the cash is not available. We are talking not just about roads but about housing, schools and all of the social problems that spring from a sudden influx of people whose roots are not in the community.
These issues create problems for the police whom the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) mentioned. We have a severe problem in Aberdeen. For a long time the chief constable has been responsible for maintaining law and order on the oil rigs. This places an enormous burden upon the Grampian police force. It is coping extremely well, but this is a burden which extra finance could have lessened. Yet the finance which the Government are providing to oil-affected areas is derisory.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) would agree. He has exactly the

same sort of problem in his rural areas as I have in the rural areas of the Grampian Region. We also have the urban problems in Aberdeen and in places such as Peterhead where, often, the problems ssem greater in comparison with the calm which preceded them. That is my first point—the financial non-implications of this Bill.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), with his characteristic lucidity, pounced on the point, as is his wont, that if the Scottish Assembly were to be set up, it would be possible for it to reverse what we are doing here and say that instead of the money coming to Westminster it should go to a Scottish Assembly. [Interruption.] There we have the voice of confusion speaking. [Interruption.] I was referring in that comment to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and not to my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. I spoke of my hon. Friend's characteristic lucidity. I was referring just now to the mutterings coming from a sedentary position from the Leader of the Scottish National Party who said—if I heard him right, and if I am wrong I shall give way to him—that of course it would be the object of a Scottish Assembly to take these revenues to itself.
Here is a classic example of precisely the confusion which will reign if this or any other Government were stupid enough to set up a Scottish Assembly on the lines at present proposed. One of the first things it will do—I have no doubt of this—is to try to take these revenues. Westminster will oppose it and there will be a constitutional row. The people of Scotland will somehow be given the impression—no doubt by means of the eloquent persuasion of the SNP, helped by the media—that they are being done down. The hon. Member for Western Isles is nodding his head. I do not see how this House—would that it were fuller—can shut its eyes to this. This is what we mean when we speak of the classic recipe for confusion and constitutional division which will follow as night follows day as a result of the setting up of a Scottish Assembly.
Here we have what in normal circumstances would be a perfectly straightforward Bill. I would have liked to see more revenue going to the affected areas. We welcome the Bill. But what is, in


effect, a simple Bill in normal circumstances becomes a red rag to the SNP bull. We are, in effect, challenging the SNP to take this revenue away from the House of Commons. Its leader has admitted that that will be the aim.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State, therefore, to comment on how he proposes to see that such conflict does not arise, since we have already had evidence from the SNP that it will make it its business, if a Scottish Assembly is set up, to see that it does arise. I hope that all hon. Members, and not least the two Front Benches, will take note of this factor and will reconsider the question of a Scottish Assembly, which the Government hope to bring before us, since such an Assembly will undoubtedly lead to constitutional divisions and rows between this House and the Assembly, which, if carried too far, could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

8.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): This is a short but important Bill, and its importance has been underlined by the many contributions we have had to the debate, especially from hon. Members opposite. I have a large pile of papers containing priceless information, and I hope that I have the skill to translate that information to hon. Members opposite and to satisfy everyone on the many questions that have been put to me.
Primarily the Bill has been introduced to deal with two particular problems. The first is the derating of the Tay and Forth bridges—and I think that the Government have the full support of all hon. Members in the view that these bridges should be derated—and the second is the derating of the oil pipelines and oil rigs and other parts of the oil industry which lie out to sea. That is surely not in question.

Mr. Younger: I hope that the order, when it comes, will include the Erskine bridge in case someone should have the bright idea of rating that as well.

Mr. McElhone: The Erskine bridge is Crown property, vested in the Secretary of State, and therefore does not enter into this matter. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State does

not pay rates for the undertakings under his control. As I was saying, the two main parts of the Bill deal with the Tay and Forth bridges and the derating of the offshore installations and pipelines. No one in the debate has doubted that proposition.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) asked many questions, including one about hybridity. That is an important and complicated subject which caused a great deal of trouble with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. As it is so important, I shall give as full an answer as possible.
Clause 1(8) is precautionary. It is intended that the order should describe installations in general terms. The possibility of affecting private interests differentially is remote, but cannot be ruled out altogether. The idea of subsection (8) arose from the Government's experience with the definition of what is a ship. With the possibility that the exemption of a stated type of property might affect different private interests in different ways, it is necessary to allow time for people who might be affected to make representations when an order is laid, but there must be a limit to possible delays, so subsection (8) allows 20 days for that purpose. We are allowing 28 days for the order to lie on the table, as it were, in order that people who think that they have a particular private interest may make representations and we can sort out the problems before we run into difficulties such as those we have experienced in the past.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has great experience and knowledge of the oil industry. The most important of his questions was, "Why not cut off at the three-mile limit?" With oil exploration moving nearer to the coast, such a move would create unevenness. More and more, technology is moving oil exploration nearer to the coast and partly, indeed, even on to the land. That is the reason for the inclusion of this provision. He objected to the exemptions created by order—a reasonable argument—but the power to exempt under order involves the most stringent parliamentary control. On any order 1½ hours is given to debating the subject, so it can be gone into in great detail. The affirmative resolution


procedure in both Houses is a guarantee that nothing will escape the notice of hon. Members, who are particularly vigilant in these oil matters. The right hon. Member will, I am sure, accept that these are reasonable precautions.
The right hon. Member also objected to the exemption of property only partly below the low-water mark—that again could be a convincing argument—but it is necessary for the two bridges and for pipelines. The Zetland County Council Act 1974, with which the right hon. Member is very familiar, provided such an exemption. The matter came up at that time in relation to a similar problem, and the Zetland County Council Act 1974 was put through for that purpose.
I could not, obviously, agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) at this stage that we should abolish the whole rating system. There may be some merit in his suggestion, but I remind him that we already have the Layfield Report with 500 pages of evidence. I know that my hon. Friend is an expert, having been a very distinguished treasurer in Dundee Corporation. He has great knowledge of rating and valuations and of the manner in which the system works. I believe that he still has until November to submit views to the Layfield Committee. If he wishes to see the abolition of the rating system, I hope that he will have some alternative to put forward.
I understand his argument about the addition to rating value if central heating is installed in a home. I have experienced that myself. I am also familiar with his argument concerning Ninewells Hospital, although I am somewhat alarmed at the cost per bed. I hope that my lion. Friend will put his views on paper and submit them to the Layfield Committee in the hope of converting the members to his way of thinking. I accept some of his contentions, but I cannot accept what he said about the abolition of rates.

Mr. Younger: I think that the Layfield Committee has already reported. I hope that what the Minister means is that representations on the Layfield Report can still be made to the Government.

Mr. McElhone: Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been on that point. I gather that my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State is taking views on the report. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West cares to submit his views to my right hon. Friend, they will be most welcome in the light of his skill, knowledge and local authority experience.
With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), the facts are that a petroleum production platform has been under construction at a site on Loch Kishorn, a specialised and very large construction site with dry dock, workmen's accommodation, storage facilities and so on. There is, as far as I am aware, no doubt that the site as a whole is rateable. The rateability of the production platform, which has been removed to Loch Carron, is another matter. It is for the assessor and, in the last resort, the courts to consider whether the platform is rateable, but I am prepared to state my view of it.
In spite of the platform's great size, it is clearly moveable. No one will deny that. I would not expect the question of valuation to arise until it is brought to a permanent location within a valuation area—and then only if Parliament declines to approve the making of an order affording an exemption which would cover it.
Rating is a very complicated subject, but a great deal of skill and knowledge has been aired in this debate, and perhaps I may deal shortly now with some of the specific matters put to me. First, what is rated and what is not rated? Hon. Members have mentioned jetties, moorings and various other pieces of apparatus which may be partly under the sea or sitting on top of the sea. How does a local assessor decide whether a subject is rated? They can be broken down into two categories: normal subjects which are only incidentally wholly or partly offshore, and subjects of a martime character which do not usually lie much above low-water mark.
I hope that I can include in this section of my remarks the subject of fish farming. I am astonished by the number of hon. Members who have raised questions about fish farming. When I saw the list, I was most surprised. I did not think that there was such a great interest in fish farming in Scotland.
The first of the categories includes piers, docks, harbours, jetties, coal mines whose


shafts extend beyond the low-water mark, quays, wharves and so on. The Government have stated that they have no intention of using their powers under the Bill to confer an exemption on any of these subjects. That takes in a fair number of subjects and should make the position clear.
In the second category, there are a number of lands and hereditaments which in the past have been held to be rateable and which, similarly, the Government have no present intention to exempt. These include yacht moorings, recently held to be rateable by a decision of the Land Valuation Appeal Court, fishings and the right to them as vested in private individuals, and oysters and the right to fish, drag or dredge for them. It goes on to mention dredging for sand and other matters.
So right hon. and hon. Members may take it that the Government have no wish to de-rate fish farming. The House will be aware that there was an attempt to move an amendment during the recent Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which was rejected. It was also tested in the Scottish courts to try to make fish farming analogous to agriculture. Again, it was lost. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept fish farming to be a de-rated subject.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Shame.

Mr. McElhone: It may be a shame, but we have to make a judgment, and I think that that is a fair one.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Wilson) asked how I made an assessment of the word "partly". He went on to say quite fairly that lawyers had made a great deal of money putting forward cases in court about how the words "reasonable" and "partly" should be interpreted. I accept that, and I accept his condemnation of his profession.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If it is a condemnation of my profession, it is probably one of my profession now as a Member of Parliament, because it was parliamentarians who first employed the language which caused the trouble.

Mr. McElhone: My views on lawyers are well known. I share George Bernard Shaw's view that they are the Devil's

disciples. All my experience as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituents' problems has done nothing to change that view.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West then asked about the power of the Secretary of State to direct an assessor not to assess. This is regarded as a limited delaying power. The hon. Gentleman questioned that. I should perhaps tell him that there is a close liaison between the Scottish Office and assessors. This is only a delaying subsection. It is a precautionary measure until such time as the customary informal consultations have taken place. There is constant consultation between officials in the Scottish Office and the assessors. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman can rely on the good relations between these different bodies. It has never been disputed that in their discussions they can always get agreement. Assessors will know that this Bill is going through the House, and they will not go to the great trouble of putting forward subjects which the Secretary of State will obviously reject.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that although these consultations took place, if they had been as effective as he suggests, there would have been no effort by certain regional assessors to put oil-related installations on the valuation roll? If they find that there is a subject which is heritable under the definition of an Act, they might feel bound to proceed, regardless of consultation.

Mr. McElhone: One of the reasons for the Bill is that two assessors were taking the law into their own hands and putting the various parts of oil platforms and pipelines on to the valuation roll. Now it will be done by order. Constant consultation takes place between the Secretary of State's officials and the assessors and if the Bill goes through I believe that there will be a reasonable working relationship between those two groups.
Great stress was laid on the word "partly". The best example that I can give is of a pipeline, because that can be partly above and partly below the water line.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has made no effort to answer questions about


seaboard boundaries or about whether the orders will go to the Assembly if it is set up. Will he please drop a note to hon. Members on those subjects before the Committee stage?

Mr. McElhone: I shall be delighted to do that. Seaboard boundaries have in the past been related to the old parish boundaries and although there has been no difficulty in the past with the new technology, there could be difficulties in future. I shall write to hon. Members more fully about that matter.
Rating and valuation is a complicated subject and I do not advance myself as an expert on it. I have had discussions with assessors and I find them to be skilled. I hope that I have answered hon. Members' questions satisfactorily and I assure them that my officials, who will read Hansard carefully, will ensure that any matter which I have not covered will be dealt with by letter. I hope that hon. Members will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Committee tomorrow.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.49 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates in relation to Scotland the Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts 1885 to 1928 in their entirety, the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act 1902 and other closely related enactments. The Bill does not seek to consolidate certain provisions to be found in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts relating to sexual offences, or similar provisions contained in local enactments, since those provisions do not apply throughout Scotland, or the Incest Act 1567 as that field of law does not readily lend itself to consolidation.
The Bill has been referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation &c Bills in the usual way, and that Committee has reported that it considers that the Bill, as amended by it, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. I would underline that finding, for it means that it would be wrong for anybody to take the view that restatement of the law in this or any other consolidation Bill in any way upgrades, modernises or gives added force to the old statutory provisions which are consolidated. The Committee also reported that there was no point in the Bill to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
In the ordinary course of events, that would be conclusive in a consolidation Bill. However, this Bill has been criticised in certain quarters for re-enacting in Clause 7 the provisions of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 relating to gross indecency between males. These critics make no secret of their desire to reform the law of Scotland in that regard. They object to Clause 7 because, instead of reforming the law, it restates it unchanged. In my opinion this criticism is misplaced. The Bill is not intended for any purpose other than consolidation. Enthusiasts for any particular reforms will rapidly destroy the consolidation procedure if they abuse or bend it to promote their own special reforms.
As the Bill seeks to consolidate the whole of the Criminal Law Amendment Acts in regard to Scotland, it would be wrong to omit from the consolidation this single provision, Clause 7. Not only would it be wrong from the point of view of the principle of consolidation but it would be misleading to the public. People turning to this measure would expect to find all the Criminal Law Amendment Act offences in it. If they did not find one—gross indecency between males—they might be misled into thinking that that offence had been entirely eliminated which would be incorrect.
The Scottish Law Commission is responsible for consolidation proposals. This consolidation was included by the Commission in its second programme of consolidation and statute law revision in 1973. In the Commission's view the Bill represents a desirable and useful consolidation. The omission of Clause 7 would, in the Commission's view, result in an incomplete and unsatisfactory consolidation. The Commission considers that the desire to reform the law should not be allowed to affect the content of a consolidation Bill such as this. In giving that view, the Commission makes it clear that it expresses no opinion on the merits or demerits of homosexual law reform. I would respectfully agree.
A main social purpose of the Acts here consolidated—the Criminal Law Amendment Acts—is to give adequate protection against abuses of a sexual nature which may be imposed upon young people, both male and female. An element of that enters into the other Act that I mentioned at the outset. It would be undesirable in terms of this social purpose to have the enactments relating to young females consolidated in the Bill whilst an important protection for young males was left to stand alone in the 1885 Act.
The point of consolidation is to bring together in one Act the statute law as it is, not as some people would like it to be. Consolidation does not prejudice reform. I would underline that to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). Indeed, it may be a prelude to it in that it may highlight areas of the law which may be thought to need review. But in an area such as

that covered by the Bill, and by Clause 7 in particular, there is bound to be controversy in any reform that is proposed and deep moral feelings for and against. Controversy of that kind is alien to the consolidation process. The proper vehicle for it is not a consolidation Bill but a Private Member's Bill. Indeed, that was the channel used to achieve reform in England in 1967.
Perhaps hon. Members will accept that, but some will say that the enactment of the present Bill might be taken as an illiberal act, as a hardening of the law against homosexual behaviour. I can give a categorical assurance that there is no legal basis for that view. Equally, it does not imply any change in prosecution policy. Crown Office policy under successive Lord Advocates for many decades—I stress "many decades"; it is not a recent development—has been and remains that there should in general be no prosecutions for homosexual acts carried out in private between consenting adults. Before qualifying for such consideration, both parties must be over 21, each must have clearly and freely consented, and the place must be private in the sense that the public have no right of access to it and what is done there cannot be observed by the public.
In conclusion, I stress the dangers, however laudable the motives may be, of using consolidation Bills to raise points on the merits or demerits of the law as it is. The essence of the consolidation procedure is that Parliament voluntarily forgoes discussion on the merits of the law to be consolidated and refers consolidation Bills to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which goes through each Bill line by line primarily to ensure that it does not alter the pre-existing law as it was enacted.
If the Joint Committee has done its job properly, there ought to be very little call for amendment of the Bill, and, of course, it is contrary to the whole spirit of consolidation that there should be amendments directed, however subtly or deviously they are framed, to the merits or demerits of the law to be consolidated. If Parliament allowed itself to be seduced by such temptations front its self-denying ordinance, the advantages of the consolidation Bill procedure would rapidly evaporate.
I hope that the House will consider that matter with the seriousness it deserves, and that this consolidation Bill can be given a Second Reading tonight—and in due course its other stages—without the introduction of a note of controversy alien to the consolidation procedure.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for missing the first 30 seconds or so of his speech. Why is it necessary to have consolidation of the law into this comprehensive form?

The Lord Advocate: Perhaps my hon. Friend will do me the honour of reading the report of my speech in Hansard tomorrow. I referred to the Scottish Law Commission, which dealt with the matter comprehensively in its second programme on the consolidation of Scottish statute law.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: As the Lord Advocate said, this is a consolidation measure, and, clearly, it will be of some use to those whose job it is to practise the law and to advise the public on its implications. So far as I am aware, however, there has been no substantial demand in the legal profession for a consolidation measure of this kind.
I do not deny that the Bill will be of some limited benefit to lawyers, but I must say, as a preliminary comment, that if the Government found they had sufficient parliamentary time for consideration of this Bill, there are hon. Members on both sides, I am sure, who would have preferred them to use that time for legislation to modernise the Scottish law on sexual offences instead of merely consolidating it. Clearly, whatever one's view about what those offences should be, modernisation is necessary and is desired. One need only look at the present Bill to see that it includes within its provisions everything from the white slave traffic—that is Clause 1—to a whole series of sexual offences and various other matters.
I wish to direct attention to Clause 7, to which the Lord Advocate made special reference. I speak for myself here, since this is not a matter on which views are

held by political parties as such, but I consider that Clause 7 should not be included in this consolidation Bill, and in saying that I make no comment on the merits or otherwise of the law as it presently stands. Clause 7 repeats the provisions of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. Among other things, that section provides that homosexual activity in private between consenting adults is a criminal offence, and it refers to various other matters relating to homosexual activity. Irrespective of past, present or future policies of Lord Advocates it has been, is and will remain a criminal offence in Scotland for homosexuals to conduct their activities, even though they may be adult and consenting and though their activities take place in private.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Quite right.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend may be right, but the question is whether it is appropriate for the Government to ask Parliament to approve in a consolidation measure provisions which the Government have no intention of enforcing. It would be different if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) might prefer, the law were enforced. The Government would then be entitled to ask the House to include such provision in a consolidation measure.
But we have the remarkable situation in which the Lord Advocate has told me in a Written Answer that he has not changed the policy adopted by previous Lord Advocates of not prosecuting cases of homosexual activities between consenting adults in private. In his reply the right hon. and learned Gentleman stipulated the special circumstances which applied when a Lord Advocate decided not to prosecute. If the House approves this consolidation measure, we shall have on the statute book activities which will continue to be a criminal offence although the Lord Advocate has categorically stated that he has no intention of treating them as a criminal offence. This is unprecedented.
This provision should not be included in a consolidation measure. The Bill, as a whole, deals with heterosexual offences This is the only part which does not deal with such offences and that, apart from any other argument, is a strong reason


for not including it in a consolidation Bill.
The Lord Advocate has said that removing this controversial aspect would endanger the whole consolidation process. This is a spurious argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that the Bill does not consolidate the law on all sexual offences in Scotland. If it were a comprehensive Bill covering all sexual offences, it could be argued that it was illogical and unsound to exempt some activities from its provisions. However, the Lord Advocate told me in a Written Answer last week:
The main statutory provisions concerning offences in Scotland with a sexual connotation which are not included in the Bill are the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, Sections 380, 381, 401 and 403; the Vagrancy Act 1824, Section 4, as applied to Scotland by the Prevention of Crime Act 1871, Section 15; and the Incest Act 1567. Local Acts are also excluded from the Bill."—[Official Report, 18th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 265.]
We thus have a consolidation Bill which merely consolidates the law on certain sexual offences. There would be nothing unsound in eliminating certain provisions from the Bill. That would not threaten its purpose.
The whole purpose of a consolidation Bill is not to make any difference to the public, but to benefit only those who have to make constant reference to legislation. Surely it would be logical to include in the Bill those offences which are still treated as offences. They are the only ones with which legal practitioners are concerned.
A consolidation Bill is of no benefit or hindrance to the community as a whole. Its benefit, if it has one, is to lawyers—people who must regularly refer to legislation and to whom it is more convenient to have a single measure rather than a dozen measures to which to refer.
If an activity is no longer treated as a criminal offence, irrespective of still technically being a criminal offence, it is of no benefit to lawyers or to anyone else to have it included in a consolidation measure. It is an interesting anachronism which rests on the statute book and can quietly be ignored if the Lord Advocate so wishes.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman is focusing the little advantage

that there might be in having this consolidation measure on the basis that there are other sexual offences outside its ambit. What possible benefit would there be in dropping Clause 7?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to answer that question, because I was coming to that point. I accept that we cannot seek to amend the Bill to change the law. The law must remain as it was before the consolidation Bill was introduced. Therefore, the Lord Advocate is right to put that question to me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who appears to concede that there does not appear to be much benefit in including Clause 7, asks what is the advantage of leaving it out. The Lord Advocate indicated how, for many years, it has been the practice of successive Lord Advocates not to prosecute homosexual activities between consenting adults in private.
Clearly this is still a sensitive subject. Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, believe that it ought to be a criminal offence and be treated as such. Others believe not only that it should not be treated as a criminal offence, but that it should be removed from the statute book, as in England and Wales.
It is one thing to overlook or not to insist on a provision in an Act of Parliament which is almost 100 years old, but it is quite a different matter for both Parliament and the public to ask Parliament in 1976 to include in a statute a provision which the Minister categorically stated he had no intention of enforcing in circumstances which he described. It is unsound. It does Parliament and the public a disservice, because we have the continuation of uncertainty. It would be preferable, if the law cannot be changed at the moment, to leave this as a section of a 100-year-old Act than to ask Parliament to indulge in gobbledegook.
It is an insult to Parliament to ask it to approve legislation which will be treated not as legislation but as if it had never existed on the statute book. It is doing Parliament a disservice, it is not doing practitioners of the law any good service, and it is causing grave concern among those sections of the population who fear that they might be affected by it.
As a lawyer, I understand—no doubt others in the House also understand—that a consolidation measure does not change the law. But when members of the public, especially those who might be subjected to prosecution, see that Parliament appears to be restating its belief that homosexual activities between consenting adults in private is a criminal offence, it is not unreasonable for those who are not lawyers or parliamentarians to assume that Parliament has decided that this should not only continue to be a criminal offence, but, like all other criminal offences, be treated as such. That is the problem.
I accept that the Lord Advocate's statement, that there is no change in policy, is completely sincere. But that is not sufficient. With respect, his tenure of office will be temporary—however long temporary might be—and he cannot bind, nor seek to bind, his successors.

The Lord Advocate: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Lord Advocate in Scotland has discretion whether to prosecute. I imagine that he would not wish to dismiss that discretion. Surely he would not want the prosecutor to prosecute every charge brought under every statute which made something criminal. In that situation, does he accept that it is desirable, if he wants the certainty that he claims, to change the substantive law?

Mr. Rifkind: I accept that it is desirable to change the substantive law. But the Lord Advocate is not seeking to do that, and there is no opportunity for the House to do what he suggests.
I entirely accept that it is desirable that the Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal should have discretion to decide whether in a particular case brought to his attention a charge should be made, but that is not what we are talking about here. In this matter we have something unique in the law of Scotland. In advance of the circumstances being brought to the attention of the Lord Advocate he has stated a general policy. He does not say that he will consider each case as it is presented to him and in some cases might decide not to prosecute. To be fair, he is trying to reassure the public by saying that cases of homosexual activities

between consenting adults in private will not be prosecuted—

The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman is quoting me, he had better quote me fully.

Mr. Rifkind: The Lord Advocate said:
I have not changed the policy adopted by previous Lord Advocates not to prosecute cases of homosexual activities between consenting adults in private.… Before qualifying for such consideration, both parties must be over 21, each must have clearly and freely consented, and the place must be private in the sense that the public have no right of access to it and that what is done there cannot be observed by the public."—[Official Report, 18th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 264.]
The Lord Advocate has presumably given a binding assurance that he will not prosecute cases of homosexual activities between consenting adults in private in any situation brought to his notice where these criteria apply. I accept that the Lord Advocate's predecessors gave exactly the same assurance, but it must be unique for a prosecuting authority to say that, irrespective of the facts, as long as the participants conform to these criteria, no prosecution will follow, although the activity is and remains a criminal offence.
The Lord Advocate must accept that in the public eye—the public not being knowledgeable of the technicalities of these matters—Parliament in 1976 appears again to reaffirm that this is criminal behaviour, and the public naturally expect it to be treated as such. I hope that the Lord Advocate will give this matter reconsideration and that he will listen to the arguments put forward from both sides of the House.
This is not a party matter. No doubt some of my hon. Friends disagree with my point of view and some of the Lord Advocate's hon. Friends disagree with his. This is a matter which has caused significant public concern. There is no benefit, other than of the most minimal type, to anyone from the inclusion of the provision in the consolidation measure. There has been no pressure from any practitioner of the law for the change to be made. No harm would be done by leaving this measure as part of a 100-year-old Act rather than for us to appear to approve it in this 1976 Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Lord Advocate will reconsider his position.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Robb F. Cook: I intend to make only a brief intervention, as this is a matter to which we shall have the opportunity to return next week. It would be wrong to let this Second Reading debate pass by without impressing on the Lord Advocate that the anxiety expressed so persuasively by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) is shared by at least some Government supporters.
There are two aspects to the problem we face in Clause 7. The first is the situation of those who are liable to prosecution under the terms of Clause 7. No one has been prosecuted for homosexual acts in private in recent years—for some decades now, as the Lord Advocate said—quite properly so. Apart from any change there may have been in the social climate over the past decade and a half, it would be intolerable if an act which took place in private and affected only the private life of those taking part were to be subject to criminal action in Scotland after it had ceased to be a criminal act in the greater part of the United Kingdom. So long as we remain one country, it would be intolerable if what is a perfectly legal private act in the greater part of the country should be subject to criminal proceedings in the lesser part.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate repeated his assurance that so long as he is Lord Advocate the Crown will not prosecute for homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. I invite him to reflect on the purpose of that assurance. Surely, a large part of that assurance was intended to relieve the anxiety felt by those who find themselves liable to prosecution under a statute which the Crown is not prepared to implement. If that is at least part of the purpose of the assurance, I can tell him that it has been largely undone by the introduction of this measure and the inclusion of Clause 7. It has created a great deal of alarm among those liable to prosecution under that clause.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, the Lord Advocate and I know that the introduction of this consolidation measure does not change the law. But quite frankly I doubt whether 1 per cent. of the population, apart from professional

politicians or professional lawyers, understand what consolidation law is all about. Indeed, having spent the greater part of last week talking to Members of Parliament about the Bill I can tell the Lord Advocate that I believe that only 1 per cent. of Members of Parliament understand consolidation law. I am not necessarily including myself in that 1 per cent. It is therefore not surprising that the introduction of this measure has caused a great deal of alarm—perhaps needless alarm—on the part of those liable to prosecution under Clause 7. It is not surprising that even among those with a greater understanding of legal matters, and with a knowledge of what consolidation law is about, it has created alarm, I believe with some foundation, that the ordinary policeman on the beat may not appreciate that when Parliament passes an Act in 1976 it does not intend him to implement that Act.
That brings me to the second aspect of the situation which concerns me. This relates to the position of the Lord Advocate and of this House. It seems to me hardly calculated to encourage respect for the office of the Lord Advocate to come to the House of Commons and lay before it a measure, and invite us to pass that measure, while at the same time telling us that he does not intend to prosecute under one particular clause in that measure. It is hardly calculated to encourage general respect for this House, or the legislation we pass, if we are asked to pass laws which at the same time we are explicitly told will not be implemented. To the ordinary man in the street this will look like a choice piece of evidence that Parliament lives on the other side of the looking-glass.
Even on the most objective view it is a curious precedent that as a Parliament sitting in session, we as Back Benchers are being invited to pass a law which the member of the Executive responsible for that law tells us he does not propose to implement. In practice, I welcome the assurance that the Lord Advocate is not prepared to implement it but as a Back Bencher I find it a worrying precedent that we are in a situation in which the Government are presenting us with a Bill, and asking us to endorse it, and we are told that whether we do or not the Government do not intend to prosecute or carry out the Bill.
For all those reasons it is highly regrettable that this measure was brought forward with Clause 7 included. I do not myself share the view of the Lord Advocate that had the Government omitted Clause 7 it would have been seen as prejudging the issue of reform. After all, if Clause 7 had not been included, the matter would still have remained the law of the land under the 1885 Act. There would have been no change in the law and at least Parliament would not have been put in the position of appearing to endorse the view that homosexual acts in private between consenting adults should be a criminal act.
Having looked through the Bill in general I cannot see what the case is for this Bill having priority as a consolidation measure. It was said that the Scottish Law Commission had requested consolidation in this matter, but it is difficult to see what relevance much of the mumbo jumbo in the Bill has to modern life at the end of the 20th century, or why it should require priority in consolidation. For instance, Clause 11 provides the courts with the powers to divest the authority of a master or mistress with a maidservant under 16 if it discovers that master or mistress to be immoral. Quite apart from the use of the terms "master" and "mistress" in 1976, if there is a master or mistress employing a maidservant under the age of 16, there are already ample laws to prosecute under the Employment and Education Acts without making it subject to a sexual offences Bill.
Again, Clause 1 is quite explicitly concerned with stopping the white slave trade. There may well still be some vestigial remnants of white slave traffic in Scotland. It may be that we should not throw aside the protection offered in nineteenth century statutes, but I very much doubt that it is of such pressing importance that it requires consolidation for everyday use in the courts.
I attempted to discover how relevant some of these clauses were by putting down a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State to ask how many prosecutions there had been under certain of these clauses. I am sorry to say that most of the information does not appear to be available. For example, I was told that there are no statistics available about the number of prosecutions

under Clause 2(2) which provides that:
A man who induces a married woman to permit him to have sexual intercourse with her by impersonating her husband shall be deemed to be guilty of rape.
I am not surprised that there are no statistics available for prosecutions under this clause, because I suspect that there have been gey few in the past 30 years. I suspect also that there are more pressing anxieties in the minds of the women of Scotland than the likelihood that the man next door might impersonate their husband in order fraudulently to obtain sexual intercourse. There are more pressing problems requiring legislation than the re-enactment of this Victorian sex fantasy.
However, the Scottish Law Commission has apparently said that it would be useful to have this legislation consolidated and I cannot argue with that. For all I know, cases of this nature are going through the courts every second day. My right hon. and learned Friend brings forward the Bill at the request of the Scottish Law Commission. Well and good—but at the very least we cannot allow Parliament to affirm the view in 1976 that private acts of homosexual activity between consenting adults should be criminal acts. I shall therefore be supporting the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands in Committee in his attempt to delete this clause, and I hope that we shall have support from all quarters of the House.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I should like to congratulate the Lord Advocate on bringing in the Bill and I hope that he will not give way over the 1885 Act. I am not one who wishes to pursue homosexuals but we should retain the power to deal with very disagreeable cases. I am in favour of having this provision in the Scottish criminal law and I think that the English made a great mistake when they abolished it. It is said that these things are done in private or that no one can see. What will we do about wife beating, which is also in private and which nobody sees? It is also said that the provision was enacted in 1885 and therefore is old. Does that matter? I am in favour of the Act of Union, which was a great deal older.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: Having heard such vigorous condemnation of the Bill for which I was responsible, I cannot remain silent. I presume therefore to intervene in a debate relating to Scotland.
But the debate relates to all humanity. It relates to my people who will go to Scotland, whether they come from my constituency, from Wales, from England or anywhere else. Since, fortunately, Scotland is still a part of the United Kingdom, I cannot allow a reaffirmation of a law replete with humbug and hypocrisy in 1976.
A consolidation measure means what it says—that it wishes to consolidate the law, to reinforce it, to buttress it, to cement it—

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated dissent.

Mr. Abse: The Lord Advocate should look at the Oxford English Dictionary before he shakes his head and see that the word does mean to cement. I do not have the modesty of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) who said that he did not understand consolidation measures. Heaven help me, I have served on consolidation Committees. I repeat: such legislation is intended to reafirm the law, to consolidate it in the dictionary sense of buttressing and cementing it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since I was not in the House a decade ago when my hon. Friend introduced the Bill for which he is responsible, may I ask him why he did not include Scotland in the Bill?

Mr. Abse: It was not easy a decade ago to persuade everybody in the House of the rationale which is now generally accepted throughout Britain. Consequently, as a parliamentarian, I had no wish to provoke more trouble than I already had on my hands. That was the first reason, but it was not the only one. The other was that there is a wide difference between the law of Scotland and that relating to England and Wales. If that had not been the case, I should have been prepared even then to take on the backwoodsmen of Scotland, of whom I see there remain quite a number.
The reason was that there was an evidential rule in Scotland which indicated

—as I recall it at a moment's notice—that in the case of confessions, it needed corroboration before a case could be adjudicated with a guilty finding being brought in. A homosexual offence was a very difficult offence to prove already in England and Wales without having the confessions which, at that time, were obtained from those who fell into the hands of the law charged with this offence.
It was clear over a decade ago that in Scotland, because of the nature of the law, what was occurring in England and Wales was not being enforced there. I was agreeably surprised because I know of the progressiveness which is characteristic of Scottish legal affairs. I was pleased to see that a decade ago Scotland was well in advance of the law in England and Wales, and that in Northern Ireland, and was rarely having prosecutions for this offence.
It is bound, therefore, to be most dismaying to me chat whereas a decade ago Scotland was so much in advance, today, after a decade in which England and Wales have long ceased to have a law so barbaric and primitive as was formerly the law in this country, those whose destiny it is to be homosexual, whose fate it is to be denied the boons and blessings of family life, who are already estranged from the community and isolated, all those people—perhaps 1 million men in Britain—are to be made permanent outsiders. We altered that. I find it dismaying that the Lord Advocate comes along with a proposition that an 1885 Act should be so consolidated that those who commit offences of gross indecenecy will, despite what he may say, be stigmatised as criminals.
I understand the sensitivity of those homosexuals who are already denied so many blessings that come to those of us who have our children and families. I understand how alienated they can be. I understand, too, the great difficulties of trying to get a cohesive society. What-every may be the sexual patterns or behaviours of some, if we are to have a cohesive society, a society free of humbug and cant—of which we are having a pretty poor exhibition tonight—we must have a law that enables these estranged men not to be treated by the law as criminals, pariahs, but to be integrated in our society.
The Lord Advocate now makes his presumption from what he says is his position of neutrality. I do not think much of that position. At the time I was putting forward the 1967 Bill, the Home Secretary came off the neutral perch. The Attorney-General went into the Lobby, and the Home Secretary actively helped me. The overwhelming majority of the then Government showed that they were prepared to be identified with a social reform, a reform that was followed throughout Europe in the years that followed.
However, the Lord Advocate comes along with this curious neutral approach. Who is he? He is only a Lord Advocate. He says that he has decided not to prosecute. It is not this Parliament; not the legislature. At the Lord Advocate's whim, he is going to lay down, as has rightly been said, a general blanket ruling, and he says that in his discretion prosecution will not take place.
What is the utter hypocrisy and humbug that could bring the House of Commons to consolidate Acts and then give a firm assurance that they will not be implemented? What will the general public think about that? What sort of law is unenforceable law? The Lord Advocate is a splendid lawyer and a jurist of distinction. He knows that there is nothing worse than having unenforceable law, whether it is unenforceable because it is impracticable to enforce it or because the highest legal officers of the land are saying that they intend never to implement what is being carried through the House.
I believe that those who have made representations, those who are homosexual, and who say "Why should we be burdened with this barbaric Act?", are right to ask us why we should corroborate and reaffirm provisions of this kind.
I found the Lord Advocate's arguments on this occasion entirely lacking in logic and in humanity. He intervened with the question, "What good will it do if we throw Clause 7 out of the Bill?" I shall tell him. It will mean that people in Britain will realise that in Scotland there is at least a tentative step to bring in a more civilised law on sexuality. People are not prepared to put up with

something that has been repudiated by most of the civilised world.
The omission of this provision would not bring Scotland into disrepute, but would have the opposite effect. There is nothing distinctly Welsh, English or having the brand of any other nationality to the condition of homosexuality, and if we take action on these lines it will mean that the people of Britain will feel that they have a Parliament that understands. We cannot alter the formative influences which put people into this mould. Therefore, we must show that we do not lack sensitivity, compassion or humanity.
It has been said that this matter could be dealt with at another stage of the Bill. I hope that Scottish Members will see that action is taken at another stage. However, I hope that the Lord Advocate, rather than allowing the matter to be driven to a vote, will reconsider the matter.
I do not think that he will do himself personally or Parliament in general any good if it is seen that action has to be wrenched from him, instead of his deciding of his own volition that he is no longer prepared to continue this charade. Let him not act as previous Lord Advocates in other Governments have acted by not having the guts or the courage to ensure that barbaric provisions of this nature are not re-enacted. Let him not perpetuate this fake situation any longer. I was grateful for what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central. I will continue to give his views all the support which I can mobilise on the next occasion that this matter comes before the House.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I paid close attention to the Lord Advocate's remarks on this con solidation measure, but I should be grateful if he would give me some further guidance.
I gained the clear impression from what he said that this was a measure that sought to consolidate a number of Acts of Parliament. I gathered that even ambiguities could not be excluded from the consolidation process. That situation surprises me. I thought that if a consolidation measure was unclear it could be clarified and that, for example, bad grammar could be corrected.
However, the Lord Advocate gave the impression that the Goverment were being inflexible in re-enacting the previous Acts of Parliament which this Bill is about to consolidate. Does that apply to provisions which lay persons such as myself find difficult to understand?
Clause 4 says that any person who has an unlawful sexual association with a female aged between 13 and 16 is committing an offence. It goes on to say that it would be a defence if that person could prove that he had reasonable cause to believe that it was his wife with whom he was committing the act. I do not think that that makes any sense at all. I am not a legal man and I have no associations with the legal profession. Surely, if we are consolidating something, we should correct these wrong impressions.
I paid close attention to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who asked questions about Clause 2 and the man who fraudulently impersonated a husband and had a sexual relationship. I was thinking that he might stand a better chance of getting something—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very interesting but we cannot go into the details of the measures. We can discuss only the question of consolidation.

Mr. Dempsey: In Clause 14 we see that if an individual who has the care and custody of a young girl aged from 4 upwards allows her to frequent an immoral place—some den of iniquity—upon conviction he may be fined only £25. Is it not possible in this consolidation process to bring penalties into line with present-day values?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but we cannot deal with the contents of the various Acts. We can discuss only whether they should be consolidated.

Mr. Dempsey: I thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish that you had been in the Chamber a bit earlier when we discussed homosexuality from A to Z. However, you are always kind and courteous to me and I accept your guidance. I merely ask the Lord Advocate

whether provision cannot be made to increase these penalties to take account of present-day values.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I support the compelling argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). The Lord Advocate has told us that this Bill is not consolidating the law on all sexual offences. Therefore it is plain that a judgment has been made as to which offences should be included. The activity we are discussing in Clause 7 is the only offence not related to heterosexual offences. There is, therefore, since we have avoided other examples of this kind, a reason for leaving this one out, too.
A number of the other clauses deal with offences involving an under-age person. The homosexuality clause does not deal with this. It is a different type of clause altogether. For these reasons it seems that there is a good case for the Lord Advocate to say that, since not all sexual offences are being brought under this umbrella, homosexuality ought also to be left out.
Secondly, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that not all the people of Scotland are lawyers. If the Government introduce a consolidation measure in such terms as these, it is subject to all the penalties of attitude which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) have described.
Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend asked us to look at this question in the light of the parliamentary situation—that is to say, of consolidation. He is now in the position of taking the voices of the House. Would it not be better for him to listen to those voices, raised from very varied quarters in the House, and to withdraw this provision in face of the basic arguments put to him? If he cannot do that because of the relationship between him and the Law Commission in the context of consolidation measures, can he not return to the Law Commission and ask it whether it would agree that it would be to the betterment of everyone if this provision were withdrawn?

9.41 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may make a brief reply. I hope that I have not in this brief debate been guilty of any hypocrisy. I hope that I made my position clear and that I shall not be convicted of lack of humanity in this matter.
I shall sympathetically consider all the points that have been made, but the most significant, as I said earlier, is that consolidation does not prejudice reform but may, indeed, be a prelude to reform in that it may highlight areas of law which may be thought to need review. It is obvious that some of my hon. Friends feel strongly about this, but I am in the strait-jacket of consolidation procedure, and, sympathetic though I may be to some of these points on a personal basis, it is not in a consolidation Bill that these objectives stand to be sought and pursued.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

Committee tomorrow.

SPORTS GROUNDS (SAFETY)

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) (Scotland) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1285), dated 5th August 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th August, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House to take the following three motions, which also stand in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and the names of some of his hon. Friends:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Safety of Sports Grounds (Scotland) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1300), dated 5th August 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th August, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1264), dated 31st July 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th August, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Safety of Sports

Grounds Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1263), dated 3rd August 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th August, be annulled.

Mr. Monro: We all know the history of the regulations we are discussing, which stem from the Wheatley Report following the Ibrox Park disaster. Subsequently, three Bills came before the House. The final one become the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which had all-party support. I am glad to see such a sound Government team here, including the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. This motion is intended as a probe to give the opportunity to the Government to explain progress and to give some publicity to safety aspects.
My first question is why the designation order has been delayed so long and does not come into effect until 1st January 1977. Throughout the passage of the Act, and in subsequent Press releases, Ministers were talking in terms of "as soon as possible", but they hung tire for over a year, during which time the clubs have not really known what to do and have been awaiting events and guidance. In view of the good summer we have just had, it is a pity that so much time has been wasted for new construction work, because next summer such work will certainly be more expensive.
I hope, too, that the authorities will bear in mind that, however much the Home Office order indicates that these improvements should be carried out next summer, some grounds such as Wembley will have extreme difficulty. Soccer internationals will be played into June next year, and the stadium will be wanted again in August, and therefore some latitude will be needed, despite the great wish to get on as quickly as we can,
Constantly throughout the passage of the legislation the Government and all others concerned said that the clubs to be designated would include the English First and Second Divisions. That was made quite clear, with no ifs or buts about it. This can be confirmed from the Second Reading debate, and particularly the Committee proceedings. In Committee the Minister made quite clear on 1st July 1975—col. 11 of Hansard— that First and Second Division football clubs would be the first to be included.
There may be a very good reason why this has not been done, and the House is entitled to know the reason for the change. Is it solely on account of finance, or is it because the gates have been lower than expected? Last Saturday, in the English Second Division, the maximum gate was 18,000 and the average gate was 14,000. The falling gates of one Saturday do not make a season, but this may be the reason for the exclusion of the Second Division.
If it were to be said that it is entirely on account of the gates, we might well ask why the Scottish Premier Division is included when last Saturday the average gate in Scotland was only 11,000—but we have to bear in mind, of course, the occasions when Glasgow Rangers or Celtic are playing one of the other better known clubs.
It is very important to consider how regulations are to be carried out in relation to cost. The two systems advocated by the Government were the Lotteries Act and the Football Grounds Improvement Trust. The hon. Lady the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, on Report stage of the Lotteries Bill on 30th April 1975—col. 666 of Hansard—anticipated that about an additional £2 million for football would come from lotteries. This sum was expanded by the Minister of State on the Second Reading of the Bill in June 1975 when he said that he thought it might be £2 million to £3 million a year more. I shall be interested to know whether this is happening and whether the clubs are better placed to implement these regulations.
The regulations would be helped in financial terms by the offer—for which we were all very grateful when it was announced—of the Pools Promoters Association in setting up the Football Grounds Improvement Trust. The Secretary of State then mentioned a figure of £650,000 a year. I hope that it is now nearing £1 million. If the hon. Lady can tell us anything about how this sum will be disbursed towards improvements, we shall be grateful. If we take the figure at £1 million, an average of £25,000 per designated club under this regulation would not go desperately far.
We should also like to know whether all grounds are included in this figure. I understand that Wembley, for one, is

excluded. This would presumably apply also to grounds such as Twickenham and Murrayfield, which are not soccer grounds.
The regulations indicate that the local authorities can charge an economic fee for the issue of a certificate. Paragraph 7 of Home Office Circular No. 130/76, which is equivalent to Section 14 of the Act, indicates that 17 man-days' work would be a fair fee. This is all very complicated, and it may be that the hon. Lady will think it much better to have a fixed sum—£100 or £150—paid to one authority. I think that that would be very much more satisfactory than this open-ended opportunity at a time when we are trying to keep down costs as much as possible.
Then we all want to hear the hon. Lady's views about a matter about which all the grounds involved in designation schemes are concerned. They hope that flexibility will be the watchword of the local authorities. Throughout our constructive debates during the passage of the Bill we all warned that the green code must not become a Bible and that there must be a great deal of flexibility in the implementation of the regulations.
During her speech on Third Reading the hon. Lady was good enough to say that she would see that the Home Office circular brought home to local authorities that the green code did not have the force of law. I am pleased to see that she has done this and gone even further. I hope that all local authorities read very carefully what the annex says about the maintenance of the maximum of flexibility. It says in this regard that it should also be noted that the Act provides that the terms and conditions should be as necessary or expedient to secure reasonable safety and that it would be unreasonable, even if it were practicable, to seek the absolute safety of everyone attending the sports stadium. That is very fair, and I am grateful to the Home Office, provided that that theme is carried on by the local authorities implementing the regulations.
If the green code were implemented too strictly, clubs might be let in for excessive expenditure. I have in mind, for example, terrace gradients, which have to be 1 in 6. A little leeway one way or the other would not seem to me


of the greatest importance. In the same way, we must have flexibility in the division of spectator accommodation.
I want to press the hon. Lady about the safety certificates which have to be issued under the regulations. It is clear that every stadium in this order has to have a safety certificate and that the local authority, which cannot refuse a certificate, can lay down the conditions.
I know that there are certain clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool which have very near to maximum gates every other week. They are concerned that suddenly the local authority may cut their maximum gates by, say, 10,000. We want careful consideration here and not too strict an interpretation in the early days.
I hope that we can also have some clarification on the special certificate. This is rather important. In the annex to the Home Office circular, it is made clear that only those grounds which have a safety certificate can obtain a special certificate. That does not exactly tally with what the right hon. Gentleman said on 1st July 1975 when we were discussing the position of a major club like Manchester United meeting a non-League or Fourth Division club in a cup tie. Will the special certificate procedure apply in such cases? I should like the Minister to spell out where we stand with the special certificate, because if it is to apply only to designated grounds, it cannot apply to smaller grounds where cup ties might have to be replayed at short notice. We want the procedure under the regulations to be as simple as possible for clubs and local authorities.
What would happen if important grounds like Hillsborough and Stamford Bridge, which are used in cup replays or semi-finals and which are not designated, were required and had not got safety certificates? We want to see great flexibility in the implementation of the regulations. I should like confirmation, as I have had from the Scottish Office, that it is a top-tier responsibility involving regions in Scotland and counties in England. There is anxiety in Scotland that the district authorities are involved when the matter should be a top-tier responsibility. However, it is accepted that the building authority has

also to be consulted, along with the police.
Strathclyde has issued a new application form subsequent to the original form recommended by the Scottish Office which appeared to be perfectly adequate. The Home Office circular explains the failure, somewhere in the drafting of the Bill, in relation to Regulation 7 and interested parties. We must live with the Act as it is. It will cost more money for the local authorities and the football clubs if changes in certificates have to be advertised so that any interested party has an opportunity to object. That may happen infrequently, but one would hate to think that it would open the door to all sorts of objections from people who have their knives into a particular football club.
By and large, I welcome the regulations, provided that the clubs are given fair opportunity in the next year to implement them as soon as they can. I hope that the Minister will give help and guidance on how the available money will be disbursed. If she does that, she will help to allay the fears of the clubs.
You might become concerned, Mr. Speaker, if I delved into the reasons behind the Act and the regulations—

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the Business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

SPORTS GROUNDS (SAFETY)

Mr. Monro: The Opposition will give the Government the fullest support in stamping out football hooliganism, a matter which is very much allied to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and the regulations. If the hon. Lady feels that she does not have the powers to enforce sufficient discipline within the grounds or outside them, she can count on our support, as we believe that strong, stiff custodial sentences are probably among the quickest ways to bring the hooligans to their senses.

If the hon. Lady can at an appropriate time answer some of my questions, that will help the clubs to prepare the way for this important step forward and make football grounds safer for all those who attend matches in them.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Under two of the motions there appears on the Order Paper the rubric:
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have not yet completed their consideration of the Instrument.
As Chairman of the Committee, perhaps I may explain that it is a very simple point that it has put to the Home Office. In the case of the Scottish designation order, the grounds are set out in the schedule merely by a description. In the England and Wales order the schedule sets out the name of the ground and alongside it the occupier—"Arsenal Football Club" or whatever it may be. If the occupier changes, perhaps even by a change of name—becoming the Arsenal Football and Athletic Club or something of that sort—does that take the ground out of the order? Why put the occupier in the schedule? It seems to cause some confusion rather than elucidation of the order.
I want to refer to something far more fundamental. To carry out the orders, the designated clubs will require to carry out expenditure. The whole Act under which the orders are made requires the clubs to spend money, and quite properly so. The clubs, the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation hope that the clubs may obtain some of the money from lotteries. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) mentioned two ways in which the money could be raised—lotteries or a certain fund.
The hope that the clubs might raise money from lotteries has fallen to the ground. Therefore, I cannot see how they will carry out the provisions of the order unless further finance is assured to them. We have waited for the Lotteries Act to come into operation. It was passed at the same time as the Act under which the orders are being made, yet, because the regulations under that Act have not been made, nobody can earn any money to pay for the sort of expenditure required under the orders. Indeed, one

expected that the regulations would come in before this season started so that the clubs designated under the orders could have had the benefit of raising money by the larger lotteries to be allowed under the Lotteries Act.
The regulations have not come in, and the clubs are now faced with a reduction of income as a result of the statutory instruments now before us. As far as I can understand, clubs will be prevented in future from running the most profitable lottery which they have run in the past, that is, instant bingo, the lottery whereby the little sealed bingo card, fruit card or "golden goal" card is opened and at once the person who has bought it knows whether he or she has won a prize.
The objection to that is that the winning numbers may not all have been sold and the lottery promoters may retain some of the prize money. A solution to that has been put to the Home Office, and I believe that it is acceptable. But now the Gaming Board has scraped the barrel on the interpretation of the Lotteries Act in order to say that it will not register instant bingo as a lottery.
If it is the Government's intention to kill instant bingo for football clubs, let it be remembered that the clubs are not gaining some £2 million or £3 million under the Lotteries Act but they are losing about £5 million, because their instant bingo will be killed and they will not be allowed to use it in future with an increase from the £5,000 per lottery, which can be used now, to £10,000 under the Lotteries Act. There will thus be a loss to the clubs of at least £5 million a year.
I ask the hon. Lady to consider this carefully. She brings these orders and regulations before the House to carry out an important and commendable Act, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, but the clubs whose grounds are designated will need a far greater income than they have at present to meet the terms of the Act. They hoped for that greater income out of the Lotteries Act. They are being denied that now, 14 months after the Act was passed, and, as one can see from the letter from the Gaming Board to the clubs saying that it will not register instant bingo when the regulations come out, the clubs will not only not make money under the Lotteries Act but will lose millions of pounds if the regulations are brought in.
If the hon. Lady wants her regulations to succeed and she wants the clubs to make their grounds safe, she has to ensure not only that their existing lotteries may continue but that they will have the benefit—it was intended to be a benefit—of the Lotteries Act and have more finance available to them in that way.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I give an initial welcome to the regulations and orders and assure the Under-Secretary of State that brevity will prevail. I am concerned, however, about one omission, and this relates to the categories to which reference was made on Second Reading of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill, which were, of course, the pillars of what Lord Wheatley presented in his report which formed the platform for the legislation which the House then passed.
I remind the House that on page 14 of his Report of the Inquiry into Crowd Safety at Sports Grounds, Lord Wheatley recommended as follows:
I would accordingly recommend that the introduction of the licensing system for grounds where money is charged for admission should be restricted and phased as follows"—
and he then gave various categories. Category 1 had two subheads:

"(a) all International Grounds i.e. Hampden Park, Ninian Park, Wembley Stadium, Cardiff Arms Park, Murrayfield and Twickenham.
"(b) all English 1st and 2nd Division Football League grounds and all Scottish 1st Division Football League grounds"—

though we know that the latter are now the Premier Division. This was endorsed by the then Minister of State at the Home Office who said on Second Reading:
It is intended, accordingly, that only those grounds in Lord Wheatley's category 1, which are mentioned on page 14 of the report, should be dealt with first, that is to say, the international grounds, the English First and Second Divisions".—[Official Report, 19th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1745.]
The regulations make no reference to provision at Second Division grounds. It is against the backcloth of a desire for safety that I introduce this aspect. It is essential that these grounds are prepared for the regulations for which they were intended. Many clubs in the Second Division will have been relegated from the

First Division or will be expecting promotion.
Yesterday's papers carried statistics of attendances at Second Division matches. There were 18,000 people at Fulham, more than 10,000 at Bristol and 15,000 at Blackburn, Nottingham, Oldham and Wolverhampton. All these attendances were in excess of the figure of 10,000 referred to so frequently in the Act.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will make specific recommendations and refer to the timetable for introducing Second Division grounds into the category proposed by the former Minister of State at the Home Office and included in the Wheatley Report. Many of these grounds will be staging cup ties in the next few months and their omission could be serious.
There are many other grounds not necessarily required to be graded as category 1, including multi-purpose stadia. One example near my constituency is Wimbledon, which would not qualify for categorisation but which has crowds of well over 10,000 and is used for a wide range of sporting activities including greyhound racing, speedway and stock-car racing. White City may be in the same category.
It would make many families much happier if the hon. Lady indicated that these stadia were to be included in the categorization.

10.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for his general welcome for the Act, the orders and the regulations.
The Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 was brought into force with effect from 1st September 1975. From that date county councils and the regional authorities have been empowered by Section 11 to enter and inspect sports grounds and to apply to a magistrates' court for an order under Section 10 prohibiting or restricting the admission of spectators to a ground when they consider the risk to be so great as to justify such action.
The main instrument of control under the Act, however, is the safety certificate which will enable the local authority to impose such terms and conditions as are


necessary to ensure a reasonable standard of safety at the ground in question.
Lord Wheatley in his report recommended that a system for licensing grounds should be introduced in phases and that the first phase should cover the international grounds, the English First and Second Division Football League grounds and the Scottish First Division grounds. There has been a significant fall in attendance figures at football matehes since Lord Wheatley reported. Risks are at their greatest when large crowds are present and densities are high. In these circumstances, it was thought right to restrict the first designation order, in the case of England and Wales, to the international grounds and the grounds of the clubs in the First Division of the League.
However, the designation of Second Division grounds has been deferred until we have reviewed the effects of the first order. They will be designated in due course.

Mr. Macfarlane: Is there any possible timetable that the hon. Lady could include? Presumably everybody must be hoping for a resurgence of attendance at football grounds in the Second Division.

Dr. Summerskill: That aspect will be taken into account if and when there is a resurgence. The hon. Gentleman hopes that there will be a resurgence. At the moment, the risks have gone down because attendance figures have dropped. This matter is in abeyance. Certainly Second Division grounds will be designated, but the matter will be reviewed when the first order has been implemented for some time so that we can see its effect.

Mr. Macfarlane: Is it not mandatory as the Act specifically refers to those grounds capable of holding in excess of 10,000 spectators?

Dr. Summerskill: The expectation was that Second Division grounds would be designated. That expectation was based on high attendance figures, which have now fallen. When circumstances change, Second Division grounds will be subject to an order.
Regarding the timing of the order, there is a requirement under Section 18(4) of the Act that the various interested

bodies must be consulted before any order is made. We consulted the football and local authorities concerned over applications and appeals procedures and the fees to be charged to the clubs. That took time. We decided that it would be for the benefit of the clubs generally to time the designation order so as to enable them to carry out the more major works in the close season. Therefore, the order was made in July to come into operation in January next.
It has been suggested that local authorities should defer making safety certificates until August—that is, after the next close season. By 1st January 1977 designated clubs must have applied for safety certificates if they wish to continue to admit spectators to their grounds and conform with the requirements of the Act. As I have said, the issue of safety certificates will be deferred until August 1977. That will not only give clubs the opportunity to carry out ground improvements up till then, but enable more funds to accrue to the Football Grounds Improvement Trust and be available to clubs to meet the cost of the safety measures which may be required of them.
By far the greatest help to clubs in meeting the requirements of the Act will come from the Football Grounds Improvement Trust. I understand that £1½ million may be available by the time clubs carry out the necessary work. The trust is independent, so it will decide how the money should be disbursed. I understand that trust funds will be available to meet the cost of safety measures car-tied out before the grounds concerned were designated. Therefore, clubs will not be penalised for having made an early start on ground improvements.
The hon. Member for Dumfries specifically asked about Wembley Stadium. Wembley Stadium Limited has written to the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation indicating that it will not have time to carry out major ground improvements during the close season of 1977—namely, May until the end of July—as the stadium's sporting activities do not cease until mid-June. It will be unfortunate if Wembley Stadium has a shorter close season than do the League football clubs in which to carry out ground improvements, if that should happen, Wembley Stadium may have to have the necessary ground improvements


carried out in stages and to limit the number of spectators admitted to the ground until the work is completed.
I understand that the stadium authorities also said that the Greater London Council is not being flexible in its approach and is applying the "Guide to the Safety of Sports Grounds" as statutory regulations to be adhered to in every respect. The Government have taken every opportunity provided by seminars and circulars to impress on local authorities the need to be flexible in their approach, as was urged by the hon. Gentleman, and to treat the advice in the "Guide to the Safety of Sports Grounds" for what it is—guidelines only. If any club or stadium authority considers that its local authority is requiring unreasonable safety measures to be carried out, it may appeal to the Secretary of State against any requirement which is made a condition of a safety certificate. The terms and conditions in question are suspended until the appeal is determined.
I was asked about the difference between the Scottish designation orders and the others before us tonight. Both the Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 1976 and its Scottish counterpart designate football grounds which require safety certifications under the Act. However, the schedules to the designation orders differ and their dissimilarity is marked. That covering England and Wales names the occupiers of the stadia, while that for Scotland does not. The reason for including the occupiers' names in the schedule covering ground south of the border is that Old Trafford, Manchester, is the address of both the Manchester United Football Club and the test match cricket ground. To ensure that there can be no confusion as to the ground designated, it was decided to name the occupiers of the ground. No similar confusion can arise when only the addresses of the Scottish grounds are given.
I was asked what happens when a ground which is not designated attracts a team with a large following—for example, Manchester United for the FA Cup—and therefore expects a maximum crowd. If the local authority felt that there was an extreme risk to the safety of spectators attending the game, it could apply to the magistrates' court for an

order under Section 10 prohibiting or restricting the admission of spectators to the ground.
Only clubs which have been designated can obtain a special certificate following the issue of a general safety certificate. The strict timetable provided in the regulations for a local authority to consider each stage of an application for a special certificate and for the Secretary of State to consider appeals is necessary because a special safety certificate is required for a specific occasion and any appeals must, therefore, be completed in advance of the date on which that event is due to take place. However, we have tried to ease the burden by advising local authorities and football clubs that every effort should be made to ensure that all activities are included in the general safety certificate, the aim being to eliminate the need for special safety certificates.

Mr. Monro: I thank the hon. Lady for the trouble she is taking. When a small ground is visited by a major club, conditions are laid down as a result of consultation between the club, the police and the local authority, and a special certificate does not apply.

Dr. Summerskill: The purpose of a special certificate is to deal with a specific occasion such as a pop festival or religious gathering. The general certificate deals with ordinary football matches.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to the lottery regulations. I am aware of the point that the right hon. Member raised about the letter from the Gaming Board. I am writing to him on this matter, which came to my attention recently. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the legality of instant bingo is very much in doubt. I have a copy of the letter from the Gaming Board and I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman and enlarge on what I have just said.

Mr. Graham Page: Can the hon. Lady give any hope to the House that it will be possible for clubs to raise finance from lotteries? She has just mentioned that they can raise £1½ million from the fund, but they could raise much more from lotteries if she brings them into operation and allows clubs to continue with instant bingo.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly the Lotteries Act will be of great help to the clubs, but the subject of instant bingo is another matter about which I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.
With reference to the Strathclyde application form, the regulations specify that the application should take the form contained in the schedule to the regulations or a form to the like effect. I am satisfied that the Strathclyde form is to the like effect. It asks for certain additional information, such as plans to a specific scale, which it is open to the local authority to require under Section 3(4) of the Act.
There has been great concern about the cost to clubs of these measures and we are very aware of the financial difficulties facing the football world at the moment. But hon. Members will be aware of the established policy that occupiers of premises should take whatever measures are necessary for the safety of their customers while they are on the premises and should finance such measures themselves. However, we have restricted the first designation order to 27 grounds in England and Wales—in order to do everything we can to help in the financing—and to 12 grounds in Scotland. We have limited to the minimum the number of clubs to which the fund of the Football Grounds Improvement Trust will be available in the first instance. We have arranged the timing of the designation order and its operational date.
With the suggestion to local authorities that the issue of safety certificates might be deferred until the 1977–78 season, the need for clubs to incur expenditure on safety measures will be delayed as long as reasonably possible so that as much funds as possible will have accrued to the Football Grounds Improvement Trust. Furthermore, we have emphasised to local authorities that there must be flexibility in their approach and that only reasonable safety measures should be required.
Taxation relief should also be of help to the clubs. The total expenditure on fixed plant and machinery may be offset against taxable income in the first order. This will cover such items as sprinklers, fire alarm systems, floodlighting, remove-able seating and so on. Moreover, taxation relief is available in respect of expenditure on structural works required under the Safety of Sports Grounds Acts and there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against any requirements of the local authority thought to be unreasonable.
I think I have covered all the points that were raised. On the general very serious topic of the incidence of football hooliganism, I can assure the hon. Member for Dumfries that the Secretary of State is extremely concerned about the matter. He is working with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Snort and Recreation, with chief constables and with the Scottish Football Association.
There is to be a working party under the chairmanship of the Minister for Sport and Recreation to look into this whole matter and the Lord Advocate is to consider whether it might be arranged for higher penalties to be attracted, for example, by instructing that charges of hooliganism are taken before the sheriff court rather than the district court and by ensuring that breaches are taken on the most serious charges that may be justified. For example, some cases now taken as breaches of the peace might be taken as rioting.

Question put and negatived.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That, during the proceedings on the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords], Standing Committee A have leave to sit twice tomorrow.—[Mr. Bates.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Alf Bates: Mr. Alf Bates (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)rose—

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21st October], That the Bill be now considered.

Question again proposed.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)rose—

Mr. George Younger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a minor technical point. The motion on the Order Paper says:
As soon as a member of the Government shall have signified his intention to move, That this House do now adjourn, for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion:
I was not aware of that motion having been moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I think that that requirement was carried out by the Whip, the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates).

Mr. Wells: When I was on my feet last week the pound stood at a very different figure from the one at which it stands tonight. That is almost entirely due to the ineptitude of the Labour Party, Her Majesty's present Government. We are tonight, as we were last Thursday, discussing the expenditure of £38 million of Government money on the building of an oil refinery which is totally unneeded, totally unwanted and completely undesirable—

Mr. Hamish Gray: Rubbish.

Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend the local Member says, "Rubbish." I trust that I may have the opportunity of dealing with his arguments which we heard last week.
The argument for this Bill was bad last week. It is even worse this week. I hope that it will be rejected, for a number of reasons. First, it is almost incredible that a British subject should

be compulsorily expropriated by the Government in order to give his land to a £100 company formed in London, which is no more resident in Cromarty—

Mr. Gray: Than my hon. Friend's constituent is.

Mr. Wells: I wish that my hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench would contain himself. Many unkind and untrue things were said about my constituent last Thursday. I rightly contained myself in his defence until I heard the arguments. But it is important that the House should be acquainted with the facts about the good works which Mr. Michael Nightingale has perpetrated in and around his estate at Cromarty.
The Highland Fabricators Unit is compelled to run a ferry from Cromarty across the neck of water because of the lease that my constituent gave. My constituent is primarily interested in the well-being of the neighbourhood. He may not live there the whole time, but no more did the people who built Cromarty House. No more did the people who laid out the town of Cromarty. They, too, were people who attended the court of the King in their day, be it in Edinburgh or in London.
Therefore, there is a great deal of humbug on the part of the substantially absentee Scottish National Party and on the part of the totally absent Liberal Party. We should be clear about what is going on there.
During the recess, I visited that part of the United Kingdom and I was greatly impressed by the local councillors I met—people of all parties and no party. But I believe above all that these local people want solid local employment found, and I do not believe that this refinery will be a provision of solid local employment, by which I mean something that will provide jobs now, this year, next year and in 10 or 20 years' time. This refinery will be a great mushroom. There will be an upsurge in employment and then it will decline. What is needed is not 1,400 jobs for building the refinery, to be followed by 300 or 400 jobs for running it, but a lot of small firms, well based and well founded, providing continuing employment.
I speak with great diffidence in the presence of the local Member, but I know from my own researches that there are men and women there who are travelling some 70 miles to work each day. Who in their senses wants to travel 70 miles to work each morning and 70 miles back home at night? It is madness. A reasonable man might want to go 10, or 20, or at the most 30 miles to work, but one is worn out if one commutes more than that.

Mr. Gray: I feel that my hon. Friend is exaggerating this point. The number of people who travel 70 miles to work is very small indeed there. It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that some people may do a round trip of 70 miles, but those who actually travel 70 miles each way are very small in number.

Mr. Wells: Of course the number travelling 70 miles each way is very small, but I assure my hon. Friend that some people are coming from further north than Golspie, which is about that distance. But the point I am putting is that it is madness to base the argument for the refinery on the great criterion of jobs. Last Thursday, we heard of this, that and the other great national or Scottish or Highland body wanting more jobs. Of course they all do, but they want them in proper proportion. If we are to have another refinery, it should be where jobs are scarce—the Clyde, for example, a centre of high unemployment—and not where there is full and over-full employment. Compared with Clyde-side, there is over-full employment in the Cromarty area.
If we put in the further 1,400 jobs required for the refinery construction, the people who will come in will be the oily men from all over the world—I mean "oily" in the best sense—and they will not be the unemployed and unemployable people from my hon. Friend's constituency. They will be incomers; they will find it a delightful place to live, and they will live there expecting houses and schools and university places and infrastructure of ail sorts. Then, when the refinery is built, and 1,000 of them are out of work, they will expect this House to find more money to find new jobs for them. Clearly that is absolute nonsense. I believe that the whole argument on jobs falls by the wayside.
I turn to the situation of my constituent, Mr. Michael Nightingale, about whom many unkind and hurtful things were said last Thursday in the House.

Mr. John Biffen: Before my hon. Friend reaches the issue of his constituent, will he clear my mind on one point? Was it the view of Mr. Nightingale that there should be no refinery at Nigg, or that he was in favour of a refinery provided that it could proceed in circumstances that were acceptable to him? My hon. Friend has been arguing as though there were a case for no refinery.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall seek to deal with that matter in a few moments.
My constituent, Mr. Michael Nightingale, who has been the proprietor of the Cromarty estate for 12 years and who since the recent sad death of Colonel Ross is now the outright proprietor of the entire estate, has taken the view all along that there should be a suitable increase in local employment. In the Highland Fabricators development he was careful to see that local jobs and amenities were protected. He has taken the view all along that, if there is to be a refinery, it should be properly protected and that local people should be properly protected.
When I first came into this debate as a Kent Member of Parliament, some 600 miles away from Nigg Bay, at first sight totally ignorant of it, I came into the matter to protect the interests of my constituent. But since then I have taken a much broader interest in the matter, and indeed I visited the place during the Summer Recess. The view I now take is that there should be no refinery. My constituent takes the view that if a refinery is to come against his judgment, at least local people should be protected from its worst effects. I think that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen).

Mr. Biffen: I think it does, but is not my hon. Friend saying that Mr. Nightingale was quite prepared for a refinery to be established at Nigg Bay, provided that certain conditions were observed?

Mr. Wells: Yes, of course he was, provided that certain conditions were


observed. But that is where I part company from my constituent, Mr. Nightingale. He, being an even more reasonable man than I am, is prepared for there to be a refinery provided that certain conditions are observed. I take the view, which I shall elaborate shortly, that there should be no refinery at all, but Mr. Nightingale, being a more reasonable man than I, says "If the damned thing has to come, let us have it on our terms."

Mr. Robin Corbett: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in a BBC1 interview with Mr. Vincent Hannah on 19th October, his constituent was reported as saying
I would consider selling them the land in return for a small share in the company."?
That sounds slightly different, does it not?

Mr. Wells: No, I think not. Surely the point is that Mr. Nightingale is prepared for there to be a refinery, provided that he is in a position to dictate the terms on behalf of himself and the local people.
I do not know whether the hon. Member has visited the site and seen the great natural beauty of the Sutors Peninsula, the southerly peninsula, or Easter Ross. There is no doubt that Colonel Ross, who was the previous owner, and Mr. Nightingale have taken a great interest in preserving local amenities. Mr. Nightingale was awarded the OBE not long ago for his work in maintaining areas of natural beauty. He is a man who has this very much at heart. He has said that he would be willing for the refinery to go ahead if he had some degree of control, either by having a share in the company, which would give him a seat on the board, or by him granting a lease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who was one of the Parliamentary Commissioners who heard the case in Edinburgh, pointed out that if Mr. Nightingale's land was to be dredged away there would not be much of it left so that a lease would be somewhat inappropriate. I accept that. The fact remains that Mr. Nightingale will get quite a lot of money out of this whatever happens. Therefore, the monetary consideration has no bearing. What does have a hearing is Mr. Nightingale's

true and genuine concern for his friends and neighbours in the vicinity.
This is why I, as Mr. Nightingale's Member of Parliament, hope that I have progressed from a rather narrow, protectionist outlook concerning my constituent's interests to a broad interest in the subject. Mr. Nightingale does not care how this is controlled provided that it is controlled. That is the point. We do not much care how it is controlled as long as it is not handed over on a plate to a £100 company controlled by a Swiss-American whom nobody knows. Some say that he is richer than Paul Getty or Howard Hughes. Who cares? They are both dead. This gentleman is still with us. We want to know, first, that the local residents and their amenities will be protected and, secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty wants to know that there will be a plentiful supply of jobs for many years ahead for his constituents. I do not believe that this madcap scheme will provide jobs for my hon. Friend's constituents over a period of 20 or 30 years.
I have the privilege of representing Maidstone and before that I had the privilege of being the unsuccessful Conservative candidate in the great town of Smethwick. These two places have one bond in common. Their strength and prosperity is built up on a lot of small, local industries. I will not bore the House with what we have in Maidstone and, indeed, were I to do so I would be out of order.
A local economy built up on a number of small firms employing 10, 20, 50 or 100 people is far better than a Government-based load of rubbish with 1,400 people, to be cut back to 500 in a year's time. Basically, local people want steady jobs on which they can rely. Dad wants to be able to tell Little Willy that he can follow him in 30 years' time.
This is where we are going wrong in so many of our development districts. What has gone wrong with the Scottish economy is that successive Governments have put in big concerns instead of building up from small beginnings.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend's assessment of the situation is wrong. It is because of the obvious lack of knowledge of the area that is being expounded by


him that the Scottish Conservative Party is so poorly represented in Scotland. It is only now that Scottish Conservative candidates are realising that they must be identifiable with the people in their areas that we are beginning at last to improve our situation.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention, further, to a very interesting document which was produced by a Leverhulme research fellow of the University of Stirling, Mr. T. M. Lewis, a Master of Science, and a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, entitled
Some Comments on a Potential Refinery Development in the Cromarty Area.
I commend it to my hon. Friend because it takes a totally different view and projects a very much greater number of jobs than has been claimed by anyone so far and a very much healthier future for the area as a result.

Mr. Wells: One must bow to the local knowledge of the local Member. However, the fact remains that a healthy economy is built up on many firms and not on one. My hon. Friend has the smelter, Highland Fabricators and the town of Inverness. A more healthy economy would be built up on lots of little businesses, as we all know and, despite the learned academic—I take learned academics with a very big grain of salt—if I were a potential workman in my hon. Friend's constituency, I would be very much happier to know that there were 100 companies each employing 10 people than to know that there were 10 companies each employing 100 people. But let us leave that alone.
I have sought to make a number of points. I now want to come to the national requirement for refineries. We are already oversubscribed. There is already too much refining capacity. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about his interest in British Petroleum, at a very distant stage. He had the courtesy to declare that, which I thought was quite unnecessary. In Kent, where I come from, a number of my constituents work at the local BP refinery. In the same way that the hon. Member declared an interest, I suppose that I should do so on behalf of my constituents.
Let us, however, be frank about this matter. Britain has too much refining

capacity. To put up another refinery must be absolutely mad at the present economic stage. As I said in my opening remarks, the situation has altered radically since I was on my feet in this Chamber late on Thursday night. The Government would be mad in any way to give their support to spending on this project £38 million of your money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Clerk's money and even the Under-Secretary's money—assuming that he pays his tax. We are mad as a nation to go spending £38 million of your money, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no money at all.

Mr. Wells: Even the people in the Gallery pay their taxes. It is mad to spend their money on such a project at this juncture. It is not needed. It will not provide jobs, which are needed. There are no "jobs" needed of this magnitude.
The Under-Secretary told us last week of all the worthy bodies concerned. I forget all thenames, but they are all set out in Hansard. They are a load of codswallop civil servants who produced these requirements. We should forget what these people told us. I believe that the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been taken for a ride on this, and that we should look at the real situation.
I am sure that this gentleman, Mr. Ludwig, is a kind father and all the rest of it. Perhaps he is not a father but I am sure he is an excellent chap. I invite the House for one moment to consider this. Mr. Ludwig has a £100 company in London, with a very doubtful ancestry. We have been told nothing about it by the parliamentary agents, who have been extremely idle over the whole thing. They have not consulted hon. Members in any way. They have given us minimal advice and help, and are not even represented in the Official Box tonight. That is deplorable.
The fact remains that Mr. Ludwig owns a fleet of Liberian tankers, and I invite hon. Members to consider in their minds the map of the North Atlantic, from the Gulf of Mexico round to Holland, right round the United Kingdom, to the north of us, up the Atlantic and down the North Sea. I suggest to the


House that Mr. Ludwig, who is interested in lifting raw oil with his fleet of tankers from some place or other and keeping his tankers continually on the move, is a bit worried about the North American pollution lobby. He is frightened of the attitudes of the North American antipollutionists, and I believe that he does not give a tuppeny damn whether he sets his refinery down at Nigg or in Shetland. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is missing. He was here on Thursday but perhaps it is difficult for him to come twice in a fortnight.

Mr. William Small: The hon. Member says this with his attendance record!

Mr. Wells: It is not a bad record. I do not know what is the attendance record of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). I am here most days, one way or another, so do not let us get too excited about that. I cannot remember when the hon. Member was here last.
But the serious point I am making is that this Mr. Ludwig owns a fleet of tankers on which he pays Liberian taxes. He flits from nation to nation, shifting oil from place to place. If it is not oil it is anything else that is shiftable. I believe that he or his advisers are fundamentally worried about the North American anti-pollution lobby. If he could get his foot into the United Kingdom he would find that the Gulf of Mexico is very little further from Nigg than it is from the north-east American seaboard. It is a little further but not that much further. The potential for him would be that much greater.
This gentleman, with his advisers, is totally footloose in the world and prepared to put his nasty, smoky pollutants down anywhere, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is perfectly happy, it seems, to have one of the finest parts of the Scottish eastern seaboard ruined by pollution. He already has full employment but he is prepared to upset the existing fisheries, farming and small shop-keeping community by putting in a short-term extra booster of jobs.
It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have been taken for a complete

ride on this. I therefore invite my colleagues on the Opposition Benches and hon. Members on the Government side to oppose the Bill at this stage. If by any unlikely chance my hon. Friends and I, who oppose the Bill, are defeated, I trust that we shall be supported in our amendments at a later stage tonight.

11.0 p.m.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Like other hon. Members have in this debate, I begin by declaring an interest. My interest is in the welfare and employment prospects for workers in Thurrock at the two refineries of Cory-ton and Shellhaven. I am concerned about the prospects of employment for them if we allow this development at Nigg to take place with the assistance of Government funds amounting to at least £40 million, although a formal application has not yet been received from the company. It is only natural that those of us with workers in our constituencies in oil refineries should be concerned at the prospect of another refinery being developed, because we know that our present refining capacity is not yet being used; it is only up to 64 per cent. at the moment.
The proposal to build a new oil re-finery has serious implications for the future of the oil refining industry and for job prospects. This Bill gives us an opportunity to take serious account of the views—

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Lady is advancing an interesting proposition. Would she care to extend it one stage further? At the moment, we have a capacity to produce electricity which is well ahead of current levels of consumption. By analogy, would she also argue, therefore, that it would be unwise to build further power stations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that arises in this debate.

Dr. McDonald: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has not given me time to develop my argument. This I shall now continue to do.
The figures about our oil refining capacity speak for themselves. In 1975, our output was 86 million tons. Our total capacity is 147 million tons. The accepted estimates expect this to rise to


about 156 million tons a year, even without the building of the Cromarty Petroleum refinery. Much more speculatively, we can look ahead to the 1980s and expect that we shall need to refine about 110 million or 120 million tons a year. In other words, excess capacity will continue not just through the 1970s but into the 1980s.
Cromarty Petroleum claims that the real capacity of United Kingdom refineries is only 120 million tons a year and that, by 1980, when its own refinery is completed, there will be no spare capacity at all. These are unusual estimates, to say the least, and Cromarty Petroleum gives no evidence to back up these estimates. They seem to be merely figures plucked from the air to give substance to the argument whenever this is necessary.

Mr. Gray: If what the hon. Lady says is correct, perhaps she will comment on this item from the business section of the Aberdeen Press and Journal of 20th March 1976 which carries the headline:
Now Forties oil goes to Canadian refinery.
She will see these words:
The first shipment of Forties Field oil for Canada has been delivered to a Montreal refinery.

Dr. McDonald: This is a commercial decision. It is true that the Department of Energy would like all North Sea oil to be refined here, but it cannot enforce this obligation on the oil companies at present.
The existing refineries have the capacity to refine the light North Sea oil and, where they have not, the Government are at present giving up to £20 million to enable existing oil refineries to adapt or to expand their plant to deal with it. Within the last few months it has been announced that Mobil Oil will receive £10 million for the Coryton Refinery. The Total Petrofina refinery will receive between £5 million and £9·5 million to upgrade and extend its refinery plant.
Those grants have been made by the Government to ensure that we have all the capacity that we can possibly need to refine North Sea oil. I ask the Secretary of State for Energy, given such grants, what part does the Cromarty Petroleum refinery play in the scheme? It seems that with £20 million already committed, we have all that we need and that a

further £40 million to build a new refinery altogether is unnecessary. We already have everything that we can conceivably need.
It may be true that we can risk investing in refinery capacity and justify Cromarty on those grounds, but if we offer that as a justification there are various things that we must take into account. For example, many other countries, such as those in the Middle East, have projected oil refineries which will come into the market to sell refined products. Other countries have excess capacity and prefer to import crude oil rather than refined products. They would prefer to import North Sea oil as a crude oil and not as a refined product.
If we put further capacity into Cromarty Petroleum we put money into an extremely risky investment which will remain that into the 1980s. I accept the need for public investment in jobs, in viable projects to provide secure jobs in a market where we can reasonably expect to produce a good export trade. But this seems to be a risky project which is bound to waste public money.
It is not surprising, as a result of discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union, that the Secretary of State for Energy asked for certain assurances from the Cromarty Petroleum Company. They concerned four main areas—that North Sea crude oil would be used, that the refinery would be export oriented, that it would produce petrochemical feed stock and that it would give additional, not new, employment with no adverse affect of employment elsewhere. Assurances were received from Cromarty Petroleum in a letter published last week.
Let us examine some of the assurances. We are told that Cromarty anticipates entering into long-term contracts with North Sea oil suppliers, although it cannot be sure that a decision to use North Sea oil only will not be revoked in the future. That assurance was given in October. Last March in a Press statement about the future of Cromarty we were told that it would involve 50 per cent. North Sea oil and 50 per cent. Gulf or African oil. This represents a change of heart over a few months. Have agreements with African and Gulf companies broken down or have wonderful offers been made by other crude oil companies?


If so, by whom have these offers been made and can Cromarty name them? The Scottish Office has been unable to find any company with which Cromarty has an agreement to refine oil.
The refinery is supposed to be export-oriented, but where is the market to be? Cromarty has not replied. We are told that the managing director and other senior staff at Cromarty are not experts in the European market. Where, then, do they hope to sell their oil?
The next assurance is that the refinery will be producing petrochemical feed-stocks suitable for sale in the United Kingdom. But ICI, Shell and BP already have their own arrangements to produce petrochemical feed-stocks. One wonders what the sources that Cromarty will use are, and where it expects the market to be.
We are not offered additional employment, but only new employment. There is an important difference. New employment could mean that people in Cromarty get jobs at the expense of workers in Thurrock—hence my interest.

Mr. Iain MacCormick: Does the hon. Lady agree that the whole basis of her speech is that she does not want people in the Highlands of Scotland to have the jobs because this might affect her constituents in England?

Dr. McDonald: No. The basis of my speech is that public money is being spent on an insecure project which is not likely to produce jobs in the long term, or possibly even in the short term. Public money is being wasted. It will not create additional employment in the United Kingdom, which is what is required. Our concern is that money should be spent on viable jobs.
I talked about money being spent on a viable project which we could be sure would produce jobs. Let us look again at the history of the company. It is ultimately owned by Mr. Ludwig. If we delve into his past we shall no doubt find many interesting things. Among them we shall find that in 1957 he purchased land near Milford Haven. He first offered an iron ore refinery. That did not materialise, and ultimately the land was transferred to Gulf Oil. With that kind of history, how can we be sure—

Mr. Hugh McCartney: Does my hon. Friend know that the reason for the project's not being proceeded with was a planning condition which still applies to Gulf Oil?

Dr. McDonald: The point is that the jobs did not materialise. The land was purchased in a speculative manner.

Mr. McCartney: Is my hon. Friend implying that the jobs did not materialise through the fault of Cromarty Petroleum or of some other party?

Dr. McDonald: I was not referring to the Cromarty Petroleum Company. As far as I know it did not exist in 1957. It was referring to the past activities of Mr. Ludwig and pointing out that promised jobs did not materialise. Jobs which are currently being promised by the company may not materialise. That is the point with which I am concerned.
We have here a company which is entirely foreign-owned. No British interests are represented in it. It wishes compulsorily to purchase a piece of land, and proposes an oil refinery for which we can see no need or use at present or in the early and mid-1980s. We have no guarantee that jobs will be provided if Cromarty Petroleum obtains the land or that they are needed there in that sort of industry. There is no guarantee of what will happen if Government money is handed out in the way proposed.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Lady the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) has emphasised again how doubtful are many of the aspects of this whole affair and how uncertain are the propositions upon which the Bill is presented. If anyone had doubts before about the validity of the propositions put before us, those doubts will now be entrenched following what has been said in this and previous debates.
Before dealing with the wider questions of refineries and refining capacity, I shall refer to some of the harsh and unfair things that have been said about Mr. Nightingale. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not here. I am sure that he has valid reasons for his absence, but he has admitted candidly that he was the cause of the whole problem. I do not criticise a person for taking a courageous decision and


overriding the views of a reporter or a planning inspector, but some of the remarks in his recent speech on this Bill were not of the calibre one would expect from the man who has occupied such a senior position in the Government.
I took particular exception to this reference to Michael Nightingale by the right hon. Gentleman:
All the rest of the land has been bought, but one absentee landowner, for reasons best known to himself, said "No" … But he is prepared to lease the land for 99 years or take a share in the action. In other words, he wants out of it as much as he can get."—[Official Report, 21st October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 1783.]
That put together most of the abuse directed against Mr. Nightingale and I thought that they were despicable remarks and totally at variance with the truth. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman were here so that he could withdraw what he said.
In any long-drawn-out argument there will be many contradictions and, after a few years, it is hard to untangle the facts about who is right and who is wrong. However, I have seen a vast amount of material and I am convinced that Mr. Nightingale has acted properly in every respect, that he has at heart the welfare and well-being of the people of Cromarty, that he wishes to ensure a higher quality of life for that area and that he is not, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock suggested, trying to get as much as he can out of it. That was a pretty poor thing for the right hon. Gentleman to say. If Mr. Nightingale had wanted to extract the maximum amount of money from the land, he could have sold it at a much higher price. But that has never been his intention.
Some hon. Members have referred to Mr. Nightingale saying that he was prepared to take a share of the action or some such words. I wish that someone could refine the vast amount of paper which I have received on this matter. Mr. Nightingale's remarks have been misquoted time and again and it is only fair to put the record straight.
I have here a copy of the letter which has been quoted on television and by the Cromarty Petroleum Company in an advertisement. The letter reads:
You have said nothing further about my possible wish to participate in any project that goes forward.

The letter was dated 11th January 1974 and earlier in it Mr. Nightingale writes:
I have been waiting to receive a copy of the project proposal which you promised when we met on 7th December … I note that it is now in the hands of several other bodies, but I cannot give sympathetic consideration to the proposal without the facts.
At that time, Mr. Nightingale had no information about the proposal. His only information was that it related to a marine terminal project.
I have a copy of the letter from Cromarty Petroleum's solicitors dated 12th November 1973, which states:
The company … wishes to purchase your property on Nigg Point … Cromarty Petroleum Company Ltd. would like to purchase your Nigg Point land for use for marine terminal and associated facilities along with tanks and other storage uses and intends to submit an application for planning permission in principle to Ross and Cromarty County Council in the next few weeks.
I have a copy of that planning application, which confirms what is contained in the letter.
At that time the talk was about not a refinery, but a marine terminal project.
Mr. Nightingale, in a letter to me, said:
I have made it quite clear since my letter to The Times on 13th September 1971 that I am opposed to the idea of a refinery at Nigg Point but have also made it clear that if the Government wishes it to be"—
presumably that will be the final decision of this legislation—
then I would co-operate but in such a way that the development could be of benefit to Cromarty Estate and thereby to the town of Cromarty itself. As I think I have explained to you the estate owns a number of important public buildings in Cromarty, such as the beautiful eighteenth century town hall and the Gaelic Chapel. All these buildings require large annual injections of money if they are to be maintained properly, but the estate income is minute.
It should be emphasised that Mr. Nightingale has not received one penny piece out of the Cromarty Estate and that it has expended considerable sums of money on planning inquiries which have taken place. Therefore, any question of Mr. Nightingale seeking to get what he can out of it, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, is totally disproved by some of these points.
We are primarily concerned today with the purchase of 47½ acres of land. That is the proposition in the Bill. But it is


not as simple as that. The House has been given a rare opportunity to discuss many other matters directly concerned with this proposition. The purchase of the 47½ acres is the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, which gives us an opportunity to consider all the different matters relating to it.
It is unusual, but welcome to be able to debate a major planning decision. It is also unusual, but welcome, to have the chance to discuss at such length where the refinery should be sited.
I have found this debate illuminating and helpful. I am sure that other hon. Members welcome the opportunity to discuss the conservation implications of a major decision of this kind. It is certainly a welcome, but rare, opportunity to discuss the way in which Government money is spent on investment projects of this kind. The very nature and automaticity of the investment grant system means that we seldom get a chance to consider whether it is the right or the wrong way to spend public money. We might say that is a defect in the system. Perhaps we should have greater opportunities of scrutiny.
Some hon. Members have said that we are talking about 47½ acres of land, not the investment grant system. I should have thought that the House would welcome the opportunity to consider: is this the right time to invest such money; is this the best place to put the refinery; is this the best way to spend £38 million of the taxpayers' money? We should be grateful that the procedures of the House allow these debates to take place. I hope that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) and others who have helped to ensure that we can debate these matters.
We can now examine these proposals in detail. If the Government's answers are not satisfactory—they have not been so far—I suggest that hon. Members might feel justified in saying that the Bill should not be considered.
The question that the House must ask itself is: has it been established that there is an overriding national interest for this project at this time? That is the sole justification for saying that this refinery should go ahead. If there is not an

overriding national interest, no one can argue strongly in favour of a refinery on a beautiful piece of British coastline. The overriding criterion in the jobs versus conservation argument is an established and clear requirement for development in that place. But the Government have not said that they need a refinery there. A private company says that it wants to build a refinery there. Far be it from me to suggest that private companies should not invest their own money for the benefit of the United Kingdom—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What bothers me is that the private company is not investing its own money. Very little, if any, money from the Ludwig organisation is going into this project. I understand from merchant bankers I consulted over the weekend that the only equity that is going in is £36 million, £38 million or many millions more of the taxpayers' money. Attempts are being made to raise the rest in the City. Whatever else it is, it is not the private company's own money. Some of us would be far happier about the project if a percentage of the company's money were going into it. We should get away from the idea that vast foreign funds are being injected into this country, because that is far from the reality.

Mr. Moate: I do not think that I can be accused of inaccuracy. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. If we are to sacrifice beautiful coastal areas, it has to be clearly established that there is an overwhelming need for the development.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to establish the proposition that industrial development should be kept in areas of England where development has occurred in the past and not in areas of Scotland badly in need of industrial development?

Mr. Moate: That is too big a question to answer in that way. It has to be established that a refinery is needed there. There is a logical case for saying that refineries should be established as close as possible to the markets that use them in the normal course of events. Therefore, there is not the strongest possible case for developing a refinery in Nigg Bay. On the other hand, I concede that it is argued that this will be an export refinery,


although that has yet to be established. That qualifies my answer to some extent.
In terms of conservation, it has to be proved that we need a refinery there before we carry out the development. We also have to establish that it is in the overwhelming national interest to spend £36 million of our money on a refinery in that part of the world. That has not been done. Unless that is proven it would be wrong for the House to go to exceptional lengths to give to this private company—which has not yet proved itself to be of any substance—such extraordinary powers. The company seeks a Private Act of Parliament. To give to a private company power compulsorily to purchase the land of another citizen would be to grant a rare privilege. It is a rare privilege for the country to give £36 million or £38 million to a private company.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The position is worse than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The company has written into the order the tax exemption clause—Section 8—a matter which normally the Treasury and the Inland Revenue would take care of. This private company has taken upon itself the right to exempt from tax all the costs relating to the order.

Mr. Moate: Nothing about this company amazes me. It is a remarkable example of enterprise to establish a £100 company and ask for £38 million of the taxpayers' money. The proposition at this moment in time is that the company is asking for powers of this Parliament compulsorily to acquire land. Flowing from that will be all the other matters that we are discussing. We should not grant that power lightly. We should not grant it unless we are satisfied that this project is needed in the national interest.
I wanted to say another word about conservation because some of us are so accustomed to the argument of jobs versus conservation that we think it hardly worth arguing the case. It has become a cliche. It is a situation with which we are all familiar in our own areas. We take the view that there is a conservation argument but we do not think about it much more.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) made this point in his speech the other day when he quoted the case of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is worth recalling the point that the Society made in its letter dated the 7th October. It said:
The RSPB's opposition to the development arises from the fact that the Cromarty Firth is recognised by the Government's own conservation agency, the Nature Conservancy Council, to be of international biological importance due to its large bird population.
It added:
Following the advent to North Sea oil, the RSPB has accepted the overriding need in the national economic interest to construct bulk oil handling terminals in Orkney, Shetland, the Firth of Forth and at Teesside. We believe that no such overriding need has been demonstrated to justify this major threat to the Cromarty Firth.
It is important to establish that there are strong conservation arguments against a refinery. Other hon. Members will argue that the case for jobs is real. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has clearly concluded that this is the case.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In dealing with conservation will my hon. Friend also take note of the fact that the preservation of wildlife is an international obligation? Will he also note that, so far as I understand, this is the first time that such a project has been going ahead, or is likely to go ahead, when an application has been made for two reserves of international significance within the Firth itself?

Mr. Moate: It is incumbent on the Government to say what their policy is in this respect. If one is planning to establish two nature reserves on the one hand, and planning to build an oil refinery on the other, it indicates a conflict of thinking which requires more clarification.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us in Scotland feel that on many occasions animals and wildlife have been put before people? If we look back through history it happened during the Highland conservation when sheep became more important than the people in the area. Is it not time that people, and employment for the people, were put


first? That is what we in the SNP are fighting for in respect of this legislation.

Mr. Moate: I am glad the hon. Lady said that that is what she is fighting for because the SNP has been sitting so long on the fence that it was not clear which way it would come off.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: That has always been clear.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) says that that has always been clear. A number of us have listened to the speeches from the SNP Bench and they were anything but clear. Their earlier speeches indicated that they did not know what to say or think. Apparently they are now in favour of it. That is fair enough but it is a bit late. No doubt they also voted against the Joint Committee of Inquiry which was suggested by a number of hon. Members. That would have been in the interests of Parliament and of Scotland.
I was talking about conservation versus jobs. What we have to establish is whether it is worth sacrificing the bird life, or whatever, in such an area for the sake of jobs. Of course, if there is an over-riding national need for the jobs the case is conceded. What I was going to say about my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is different from what I have just said about the SNP. While I disagree with my hon. Friend's conclusions, I do admire the courage he has shown in coming down firmly and clearly on one side of the argument.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Would not the hon. Member concede that it is a great pity that we are put into this dilemma of having to choose between conservation and jobs on the application of one company? Would it not be better to accept nationalisation of the land in Scotland and the Socialist policy of forward planning?

Mrs. Bain: When?

Mr. Moate: I need not pursue that line of argument. However, much as I am against the nationalisation of land and the State's involvement in these matters, I prefer compulsory purchase powers to be used only in the interests of the State. They are powers that should be exercised

very sparingly, but there are occasions when they need to be used, times when the Government have to purchase properties compulsorily. I am much more hesitant about the argument that these powers should be used to transfer property to another private company. Perhaps the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and I can go a little way along that road together.
We can all envisage a situation such as this in our own constituencies. If someone wished to establish an oil refinery on the Isle of Sheppey, in my constituency—and it may surprise hon. Members to know that, although it is in the South-East of England, it has an unemployment rate of more than 10 per cent.—no doubt there would be conflicting arguments between those who wanted jobs and those who wanted to preserve the coastline. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty has had the courage to say that he would go for jobs, and who would blame him? But there will be those who will blame him and who support the conservation interests. They will be upset by what he has done, but I hope that he and they will agree to differ on this issue and that they will respect my hon. Friend for having the courage to fight this project all the way through, for having welcomed these opportunities for parliamentary debate, recognising that this is a matter of immense national importance.
I wish now to say a few words about the company itself. If the company were putting in its own money, we should welcome this massive investment of foreign money, and that would be a strong argument in the company's favour. One of the arguments for the proposition is that the Ludwig empire has such vast resources that one need have no doubts about its ability to invest this amount of capital. But if it is so vast and has such resources, why is it seeking these funds in the London market? It is not Mr. Ludwig's money. He has a fund raiser who is raising money. Why is not Mr. Ludwig's money only going into this project?
It seems clear that we are talking about a project of up to £200 million and, according to the Daily Telegraph of 30th September 1976, the British Government will be supplying £36 million and of the balance of £144 million it looks as though


some $62½ million, or some £40 million—changing rapidly as the day progresses—

Mr. Robert Hughes: The exchanges are now closed.

Mr. Moate: —is to be found by Mr. Ludwig. The rest is being raised in the London money market, so that it is simply resources already available for investment in the United Kingdom.
The Daily Telegraph of 30th September had a leading article saying:
If a visitor from Mars were seeking to understand why a great industrial and trading nation such as Britain is obliged to call in the receivers from the IMF, he could do worse than mull over the saga of the Nigg petroleum refinery".
I expect that both opponents and supporters of the project would agree with that. It goes on:
This is a project of such commercial improbability that it may very well, like its previous manifestations, turn out to be stillborn. Nevertheless it tells us much about the management of the nation's affairs over the past 10 years.
For it is not a new idea. On the contrary, this is the third time over the ground. On each occasion there has been a scheme to build a refinery on the Cromarty Firth involving a prospective outlay in tens of millions of pounds from the taxpayer in grants, to create a handful of jobs at the rate of £70£80,000 per job. Each scheme has been marked by a total absence of identifiable markets.
That is the key point. The company has switched its emphasis from the import of 50 per cent. North Sea and 50 per cent. Middle East oil: now it is talking about 100 per cent. North Sea oil. But in the 1980s, the problem will not be finding sources of oil in the North Sea. The company will probably get the oil it seeks. The problem then will be where it will market its oil. We have been told that it has contracts lined up. If so, we should be told, because the viability of the project depends on those contracts being real.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is being naive. Surely he would not expect any company to advertise publicly at this stage where its market will be. If the project did not go through, the market might be taken by competitors.

Mr. Moate: That is a fair point. But we also have a fair point. If the company is asking for £38 million of our money, we are entitled to know that the project

is viable. But accepting that point, I should be prepared to go along with confirmation by the Secretary of State that he is satisfied. If he would say that he has seen these contracts and that the markets exist, that would help the House.
The Secretary of State has been asked to confirm that there is an over-riding national need for a project of this kind in the Cromarty Firth. Reasonable questions were put to him by representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union. When asked to satisfy the House and the people on these matters, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the company asking for assurances that the project would not take jobs from anywhere else, that there would be a net gain of jobs, that the company would be handling North Sea oil and exporting its products.
Surprise, surprise—the company quickly gave the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman sought. It did not take long to consider these matters, even though there was a change of emphasis from its original plans. Within a couple of days, we are told, the assurances had been received and satisfactory replies given—by telex. The company did not waste time on long explanations and research documents.
It is not good enough for the Government to lend their weight to a Bill asking for this kind of compulsory purchase power for a project of such dubious viability. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was absolutely on the nail in saying that, if the Government would say that this project is urgently needed in the over-riding national interest, that would alter the situation. Until that has been established, the case for this compulsory purchase has not been proven.

Mr. Dalyell: I would support the hon. Member's argument on markets by saying that when, in formal session of the Energy Committee of the European Parliament, I asked the Director-General whether there was any realistic possibility of markets such as were suggested from a green-field refinery paying interest on the capital which would be required—markets into Rotterdam, into Germany, with their Wilhelmshaven problems, and into France with their problems—he said that it was inconceivable. That is an official opinion of the European Commission. It may not be definitive but it should be mentioned.

Mr. Moate: That is the crux of the matter. Unless this refined oil is to find markets, and unless investors are satisfied that those markets will exist, I do not believe that the company will get the money to proceed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: This is a curious proposition. First we are told that the project is not viable and that there are no markets, and then that the company is having to raise finance capital in the City. It the hon. Gentleman is right, the capital will not be forthcoming and the project will not take off. All we are doing is discussing a Bill for the purchase of the land to make it possible that the project might proceed further. If we refuse the Bill tonight, however, we stop the possibility of the City, the company or anyone else providing jobs in the area.

Mr. Moate: I dispute that. There are other ways of settling the matter. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his first point. Does the hon. Gentleman think that, if the project is so unsound that the company will not raise the capital, it can be right for Parliament to pass a Bill transferring land compulsorily to an organisation whose credentials are so thin?

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again and so carry on the debate even longer than is necessary. Surely the point is that if the company, in the prospectus that it must issue to the people from whom it wishes to raise money, cannot show that it owns the land, how can it raise the capital?

Mr. Moate: If the House decides that the Bill should be considered now, we shall come to the question of leasing. I am satisfied that a lease can be arranged, that it would be a satisfactory arrangement, and that it would meet the requirements of any investor. But that is a different point.
I do not think that the Bill should be considered because I do not think that a case has been made out at this stage. This is not just a matter of a few objectors tonight who believe that a case has not been made out. It is the decision of the former Secretary of State for Scotland in overturning the findings of his reporter that has brought this situation about. A

whole body of opinion at that time said that there was no case for a refinery there. There was a massive inquiry and the reporter said that there should be no refinery. The report of the Community and Resources Planning Unit—CARPU—said:
The Cromarty Inquiry involved five Queen's Councillors, ten barristers, two professors and seven doctors of medicine and science. Ninety-one individuals gave expert and articulate evidence and over five hundred individuals produced written representation to the applications.
The cost of the Inquiry is difficult to assess with any accuracy, but our conservative calculations produced a total of £650,000. This figure does not include for all the background and organisational work necessary by all representatives, neither does it take into account the cost of preparation of Mr. Maycock's report ….

Mr. Gray: It is only right to point out that that report has been discredited. The Chief Executive of the Highlands Regional Council has written to the professional bodies concerned complaning about the way in which the survey was carried out. Many peculiar methods were used to gather evidence. In addition, I should point out that the principal group of objectors was known under the name of "CROW", and that the chairman and secretary of "CROW" have dissociated themselves from the CARPU document.

Mr. Moate: I cannot understand why my hon. Friend intervened. All I was doing was quoting an extract from that report, which I felt to be unobjectionable. It was a factual statement. If my hon. Friend is saying that the figures are wrong, I should be interested to hear him say why he feels they are wrong. The report tried to assess the costs of the inquiry.
It is a very good report. One might disagree with its conclusions, but it is a massive production and looks highly professional. According to Press reports—and I have no other source of information—it was clear from the beginning that it could not be guaranteed that the outcome would be satisfactory to the objectors. I was merely seeking to emphasise that this was an enormous inquiry involving a great deal of expense and that the report came to the conclusion that the final cost could exceed £650,000.
It is interesting to note that the Secretary of State, following the inquiry, overturned the objections of the reporter on the grounds of job content. What is the point in going through a vast inquiry of that kind, at massive expense, when the factor that determines the final outcome was known before the inquiry began. What is the point of all that effort when the Secretary of State has already decided that the overriding consideration was the need for employment in the locality?

Mr. Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend is now dealing with a most important point. Does he not agree that the conservation policy of the United Kingdom is thrown into the melting pot by such decisions, and that it is vital that conservation policy should be worked out in accordance with what the Government believe to be their priorities? He is right to suggest that where jobs are held to be of the maximum priority overriding any other consideration, the sooner that is made clear the better. If that happens, we may bring some orderly planning into conservation matters. Until we do so, no conservation policy will be worth anything.

Mr. Moate: The Government owe us an explanation on this matter. The reporter made clear that there was no overriding national interest proved for a refinery in that situation. He said:
There is no evidence of a need for development in this location in either national or local interest sufficiently great to warrant overriding the preceding objections.
Therefore, the proposition that is held before us tonight runs contrary to the weight of informed opinion collected and considered at the inquiry.
I have heard nothing to suggest that this company is so sound and well-financed that the project could go ahead with its own money. I have heard nothing to say that these people have such guaranteed markets that the project could command finance from the City. Furthermore, I have heard nothing to prove beyond doubt that we need a refinery in such a way as to override the strong conservation arguments. Perhaps if this were my constituency and the argument involved the existence of 400 jobs, I could understand the pressures, but I think that this is a dubious project.

Although it is right to put forward constituency interests I shall be surprised if this project ever goes forward.
If that is the situation we have raised false hopes. Admittedly, we shall have saved ourselves £36 million or £38 million which would be a welcome saving. On the other hand, this land will have been transferred to the company and we do not have control over what it does with the land. It can transfer the land to another company or it can sell the land. It has industrial planning permission. It may be that the refinery will not proceed. The case for the Bill then falls. Presumably it is justified only in terms of the refinery.
We have no control over what the company does with the land. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr pointed to limited articles of association of the grandparent company, which has as one of its major objectives, the dealing in land.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that the financial strength, so-called, of this group rests on the "Ludwig legend" and not on the publication of any financial balance sheet or declaration of public asssets?

Mr. Moate: I agree that that is the case. I have already raised the question of the 1974 accounts. It is a serious matter when accounts of this kind are incorrect. We have Price Waterhouse & Co., one of our most eminent and respected firms of accountants, saying categorically that in the opinion of the directors the ultimate holding company was the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research which was incorporated in Liberia. It turns out that it is incorporated not in Liberia but in Switzerland. I would have thought that Price Waterhouse & Co. would make a statement, writing to me explaining the situation, saying that it had been misled. If the company cannot check on a simple, elementary fact like that, I wonder that it has the gall to come to Parliament and ask for £36 million to £38 million.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there not one person who can put us right on this, namely the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) who has said:
I have made exhaustive investigations about the activities of the company."—[Official Report, 21st October 1976; Vol. 917. c. 1788.]
If he has made exhaustive investigations,


he is the only man in Western Europe who has and we look forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Moate: I do not doubt that my hon. Friend has satisfied himself, as far as he feels it is possible or necessary, that the company can obtain the funds it needs. To a certain extent this is a matter of commercial judgment because I suspect that even the company cannot be totally certain that it can raise the money. Otherwise it would have already told us.

Mr. Rooker: I have great respect for the fight which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is putting up, but the Home Secretary, as Deputy Leader of the House, said today that the hon. Member was in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Moate: The right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly in error. This is an odd Bill. It is subject to some odd procedure. It does not seem to have anyone responsible for answering for it in this House.
I want to keep my remarks brief because I know others wish to speak. I conclude by—

Mr. Gray: I corrected this matter this afternoon. I think it must have been a slip on the part of the Home Secretary. He had elevated me to a position I had no right to assume. I am certainly not in charge of the Bill. I am acting as a constituency Member of Parliament in my Back-Bench capacity and I support the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: Why does the hon. Member not speak from the Back Benches?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is being offensive, as usual. I have been given a copy of a letter from the Chase Manhattan Bank dated June 1974. It was sent to the Ross and Cromarty County Council of that time. I quote only from the last paragraph of the letter:
We understand that the subject is considering constructing an oil refinery in the Cromarty area which may involve total capital expenditures of approximately $250 million. Based on our experience and favourable impressions of the company and its management, we feel that Universe Tankships Inc. has the capacity to undertake the financing of this

project. We believe that the company may be considered entirely responsible for its commitments.

Mr. Dalyell: What was the date?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was that a brief intervention or was it a speech?

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is anxious to be helpful, but that letter was dated 1974. That is two years ago. A lot of water has flowed under bridges since then. That is not the sort of evidence that the House should need in order to come to a clear decision.
As I have said, I understand my hon. Friend's position and his desire to fight for jobs for his constituency. However, the House is being asked to give unusual powers to a private company. That company has not proved its credentials or given us the necessary evidence. We, have not had the evidence to support the case for an oil refinery based in that particular part of the British countryside. The case has not been made out.
That is not just my view or that of a few of us. It is borne out, almost word for word, by what Mr. Maycock said only in December 1975—not so long ago. He said of the Cromarty Petroleum Company:
Their reticence extends to any marketing arrangements that they have in mind for the refined products.
Of Dr. Fells, Mr. Maycock said:
He has failed to explain what these plans are, or to demonstrate their credence.
Mr. Maycock went on to say,
I therefore conclude that the need for additional refining capacity based on the operation of such vessels at Nigg is to be questioned.
Speaking about the direct relevance of the Bill and relating it to compulsory acquisition of the title, he said:
Their motive for taking that action is to be questioned, bearing in mind they have been offered a 99 year lease of that land should planning permission be granted for the development the life span of which is almost certain to be less than that term.
He goes on to say—this strengthens me in my attitude of opposition to the measure—
I am not satisfied that there is evidence of a need for the development in this location in either the national or the local interest sufficiently great to warrant over-riding the preceding objections.


I hope that the House will concur in that view and not give further consideration to the Bill.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I should make clear that British Petroleum has a national computing and accounts division within my constituency, and that within about 100 yards of my constituency boundary four major oil companies have a terminal, though not a refinery. However, it is not for that reason that I intervene in the debate.
We are talking about the subsequent spending of at least £36 million of public money. When money is hard to come by for other purposes, it is right that the House should be very careful and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of what is proposed.
Incidentally, less than one-tenth of this money, on the right terms, would keep in business the Observer newspaper and would preserve those jobs, let alone others that one could mention.
There are three principal questions about this matter. First, do we need this extra refining capacity, looking at matters in the context of the total energy situation? Secondly, if we do, is Nigg the most suitable place for it? Thirdly, is this the wisest way in which to spend taxpayers' money at this time?
For the answer to the first question we should go, so to speak, straight to the horse's mouth. The answer on that point, given voluntarily, and not under intervention, to this House last Thursday, is that no case has been made out for extra refining capacity. That is not just the view of the oil industry itself but a view made plain by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who told the House that the Secretary of State for Scotland
accepted that no overriding national need for further refining capacity had emerged at the inquiry.
That view was echoed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who said later in the debate that
Our present refining capacity is more than sufficient for our present national demands.
In case that message did not get home, my hon. Friend went on to say:
That means that there is no overriding case for the refinery in terms of present United Kingdom needs."—[Official Report, 21st October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 1735, 1780.]

I hope that those listening to the debate will accept that that certainly disposes of the argument in terms of the refining capacity assertions put forward by the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: What my hon. Friend has told the House is typical of the story of British industry. Is he not aware that we have never attempted during a depression to train people for the skills that will be necessary when we come out of the depression? The tale he has given to the House of capacity, capacity, capacity, takes no cognisance of the upsurge in industry which will come about if our policies are pursued.

Mr. Corbett: I have no quarrel at all with my hon. Friend in what he says in terms of investing for the future at a time of low economic activity, and I particularly agree with him concerning training. I know that Cromarty Petroleum disputes this, but I am advised that the present state of use of refinery capacity is 64 per cent. When we acid to that figure the closing down of existing refineries for maintenance and repair, and matters of that sort, we still have a situation now-and it will last well into the 1980s—that there is more than enough refining capacity for our crude oil.
I quite take my hon. Friend's point. We have been caught with our pants down too often on these things, but I do not happen to believe that it applies in this case. The best estimate which can be made—and, Heaven knows, it is difficult enough to plan into the future—is that we do not need this extra refining capacity for as far as can be seen ahead into the 1980s.
The principal case argued by the promoters of the Bill is not for refining capacity in terms of the need of the United Kingdom market. We have some divergence of views whether it will be 50-50 use of North Sea oil or whether, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy said the other day, it will be the bulk of it. But it is certainly not the company's case on this and that needs to be taken into account.
It would be quite ironic—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) made this point—if this House were to pass a measure which meant that we were to spend £78,000 per job to


create 450 new jobs, and then, in the areas of the existing refineries, working at only two-thirds capacity, we were to see redundancies. That would be the economics of Bedlam.
I well understand the concern of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) about getting new jobs in his area. I mean that quite genuinely. But, regrettably in that sense, these decisions cannot be taken on a narrow constituency basis. We have to look at where we are putting our resources.
To be fair to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, he went on to say that all the evidence suggested that the proposed project was not mainly directed at the United Kingdom market and that it was intended to produce substantial quantities of petro-chemical feedstock, of which we are net importers. That is a very attractive argument. But it is my information that, regrettably it does not stand up to examination.
I am advised, for example, that North Sea oil, which the Under-Secretary said would provide the bulk of the refinery's throughput, is not the most suitable for the production of ethylene and other petrochemical feedstocks. My information is that the more paraffin-based crude oil from the Middle East is far more suitable, is less difficult to work with and is less expensive for this enterprise.
We have to look at this in the context of where these petrochemical-based feedstocks are to come from, in the context of where they are getting the crude oil for the refineries at which they are to be produced. To put it no higher, I think that there is at least a question-mark over this assertion by the company because of the nature of what we know so far about North Sea oil itself.
Even for a moment accepting the export intention which I believe is a thin one, I wonder what is the need to have this refinery at Nigg Bay. At most, on the information that we have had, it is only 50 per cent of North Sea oil which will be used for the throughput of the refinery and for a market the bulk of which, we are told, is not within the United Kingdom.
I am advised that the economics of the oil industry dictate that it makes far better sense to have a refinery as near as

possible to the centre of distribution, rather than where the oil is produced. In other words, it is cheaper to pump the crude oil to where it can be processed near to where it will be used, assuming, as the company does, that it will have any sizeable market for that processed oil within the United Kingdom—and there is a very big question-mark over that, on the company's own admission.
If this is to be mainly an export refinery, which again is what the company is claiming, aimed at winning exports, what other alternative sites either in Europe or outside Europe have been looked at? As I have said, it makes sense to have these refineries near to the markets in which one wants to sell.
I accept that these matters are not directly for the Government because they have responsibility to put this before us, but these are some of the questions which have remained unanswered in the long and troubled history of this proposition.
I come, then, to my third question: is this the best use of the taxpayers' money? The proposition is that, inevitably, as a consequence of passing this measure, we shall be asked to pay about £78,000 per job for 450 new jobs in this area—and not permanent jobs, at that, because no one predicts that North Sea oil will be with us for ever.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend mentions £78,000. Perhaps I might quote the CARPU report, to have it either confirmed or denied:
In the development of the Nigg refinery inevitably this figure is likely to exceed £100,000 per job created. Initial per capita costs will be high in the beginning as roads, social facilities and housing are provided in advance of a fully operative industry rate base, which in total are forecast as £40,000 in current values. The cost to the state of each one of the likely 100 local jobs created is £400,000.
If that is true, it makes my hon. Friend's case even stronger.
I might also draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that representatives of the Inverness Labour Party whom I met on Friday night were of the view that for very much less money they could create far more jobs, for instance, in their school cleaners' dispute in, for instance, road repairs which are desperately needed, and in all sorts of other activities in the Highlands.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was using a basic figure and, clearly, the more factors one adds to it, the bigger it becomes.
I am sure it is agreed that the cost of providing these 450 short-term jobs is substantial. It is even greater if one adds to its costs of infrastructure.
About 2,500 British Petroleum refinery workers—members of the Transport and General Workers' Union—at refineries at Grangemouth, Kent, Llandarcy and Belfast have come out against the Cromarty proposal. They say:
With surplus refining capacity the building of a new refinery anywhere in the United Kingdom is not economically viable. It would be a gross waste of human and industrial resources.
One might say that that is an exercise in self-interest. If any hon. Members feel that that is so, I must add that they went on to say that if we are talking of spending £40 million of public money for the provision of jobs, there are many other ways in which it could be spent in many other parts of the country and that it could be spent in a way which would provide many more jobs on a more stable basis.

Mr. Gray: Can the hon. Gentleman give an instance of any other project at present where £150 million of private capital is available and where grants would be attractive?

Mr. Corbett: In all honesty, I cannot do that off the top of my head.
In conclusion, I was about to say that, on the serious ground whether for the foreseeable future we now need this extra refining capacity, the case for the measure is patently not made out. The Government and hon. Members from all parts of the House have said that.
We are then left with the question whether this is the wisest way of spending the money. At the very least there is a big question mark over that. I can see the argument for the short term, but is it not cruel to pretend that the project will be of long-term benefit? The case for the measure is clearly not made out.

12.19 a.m.

Mr. John Biffen: In a real sense this is a House of Commons occasion in that it is Private Business. In his intervention on Thursday, the Under-

Secretary prefaced his comments by saying that he had a watching brief—and no more. I emphasise that my intervention merely underlines my own personal interest in the debate because it raises issues which will have whetted the appetite of the powers that the Government possess under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill and which cover the whole range of matters which concern the House tonight.
I shall make my few points briefly as I sense that the House wants to come to a speedy decision. I shall resist the temptation to indulge in character assassination. The reputations of Mr. Nightingale and Dr. Ludwig have been tossed around in a light-hearted fashion. I sometimes wonder whether the House is going through a period when its reputation is so spotless that it should engage in such debate.

Mr. Wells: Much as one deplores character assassination, at least two people have been present to attest to the good qualities of Mr. Nightingale—his own Member of Parliament and his near-neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). Nobody has been here to say anything good about Mr. Ludwig. The parliamentary agents, who have been able to send us fairly uninformative bumf, have not put forward one good thing to say about this chap or his company. Therefore, I do not believe that Mr. Nightingale, who is an honourable British citizen, who has been well defended and whose attitudes have been well defended, can begin to be in the same category as this foreign gentleman with his £100 company.

Mr. Biffen: The very terms in which my hon. Friend put that intervention will stand examination in tomorrow's Hansard. I prefer to remain close to my original remarks, that character assassination, from whatever quarter, was wholly out of keeping with what should be the standard of this debate.
I turn to the more weighty issue—the whole question of the balance that must be struck between conservation and the development of the resources of the North Sea. I do not think that the people of Scotland need a stream of itinerant Englishmen to instruct them on the problems of conservation and all that attends exploitation of the Noth Sea resources.


The same problem arose over the question of the establishment of the production platform construction sites. The same problems will arise over oil terminals or the establishment of petrochemical plants. If the gas-gathering scheme proceeds, as I have no doubt it will, many of these issues will again come before the Government and the House. I am certain that the issues of conservation are regarded in as lively a manner in Scotland as in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the interest that has been shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), but I felt that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) had a point when she recalled that there were some periods in Scottish history when the balance seemed to have been somewhat overdrawn in another direction.
One aspect of the Cromarty Petroleum Company which has not been much referred to is that without any doubt it is something of a buccaneering outfit. I do not thing that that is in any sense a pejorative description. But is there not a role for a buccaneer in an industry which is very much dominated by the trans-national companies? [An hon. Member: "With taxpayers' money?"] I have no doubt that if a trans-national company were seeking to establish a refinery in Nigg it would receive just as much taxpayers' money. Let us not draw a distinction. The intruder, the outsider, is not particularly welcome to many of the trans-national companies. Although I would not describe Mr. Ludwig as a Cinderella, he is certainly not one of the seven sisters.
I come next to the question whether the proposed enterprise would be viable. For a great deal of this evening some hon. Members have been acting somewhat like merchant bankers, as though they were being asked to judge whether this was a viable scheme and whether they would advance money which the company would have to raise before there could be any advance of public funds. There has been no shortage of assertions about the future pattern of oil supply and demand on a global scale. I do not know the answer. I have no desire, and no qualification, to enter my judgment on what will be the balance of

world supply and demand three or four years hence, and certainly not during the period for which the company hopes to operate. All I do know is that there have been recent beneficial developments in the exploitation of North Sea oil which underline rather more optimistic assessments of the resources available there. I am glad to have the nodding acquiescence of the Under-Secretary.
The present under-fulfilment of the American objective of a high degree of self-sufficiency in energy supplies makes it appear that the American market will be particularly attractive for energy from the North Sea. I am pleased to have the Under-Secretary's nodding acquiescence again.
We can all make forecasts of likely levels and whether we have the appropriate refining capacity but when our remarks are read in Scotland, there will be the feeling that there has been a certain amount of closely-argued special pleading from the South-East, not least from the hon. Lady the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) who made a perfectly appropriate and fair constituency speech. Some English Members have been remarkably insensitive to feelings in Scotland.

Mr. Corbett: It is part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) for that lesson in geography. The hon. Gentleman's speech, matched that of the hon. Lady the Member for Thurrock in its insensitivity to Scottish opinion.

Mr. Dalyell: Rubbish.

Mr. Biffen: Does the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) wish to intervene?

Mr. Dalyell: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) sets himself up as the arbiter of Scottish opinion. I listen to him on many matters, but not on this.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member for West Lothian has the grave disadvantage of the privilege of a Scottish birth which was flawed by a distinctive English education.
If there are substantial oil resources being exploited off Shetland and North-East Scotland, there will be a natural


expectation that when this House makes a judgment it takes account of the natural desire on the part of the Scots to see that a great deal of refining capacity will proceed in Scotland—yes, even at Grangemouth.
Perhaps because this has been a matter of Private Business the House has brought a most welcome sceptical detachment to the question of the best use of public funds to promote employment. One theme running through the debate has been the anxiety that sums of this magnitude would have employment consequences which would mean, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said, a cost of £78,000 per job. That is fair criticism and it takes us on to the much wider question of how appropriate it is to have a subsidy on capital investment when it will often not be particularly rewarding in terms of the number of jobs created. However, we shall mislead ourselves if we suppose that this is distinctive, unique or confined to the application by the Cromarty Petroleum Company Ltd. It goes very much wider than that.
I have no wish to prolong the debate. The House has had an opportunity to consider a tangled and tortuous subject on which arguments have been sincerely and zealously advanced. In previous debates on the Bill I have been happy to vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty and I shall do so again tonight.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Hugh McCartney: Mr. Hugh McCartney (Dunbartonshire, Central) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) sure that he wishes to speak?

Mr. McCartney: I am quite certain, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) invited someone to stand up in support of a certain gentleman whose name has been bandied around by those who oppose the project. I am not here to give support to that gentleman or to any other, but I can state a few reasons why he or any group of gentlemen, or gentlewomen for that matter, who wish to engage in the kind of investment in which the Cromarty Petroleum Company Ltd.

is prepared to engage should be commended and supported.
We are all aware that for many years commitments have been made—certainly within the Labour Party—to people in the Highlands regarding the regeneration of the Highlands.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) referred to some of the earlier history which has been the cause of much continued suffering because of the rundown of job opportunities and the depopulation of the Highlands.
If this House does not pass the Bill and Cromarty Petroleum is unable to proceed with this project, it will not only wreck the project but undermine the opportunities for diversification by companies, such as Highland Fabrication Ltd. and others, which are established in that area, so reducing the opportunities for holding and extending job opportunities in future.
It will also be a serious deterrent to investors—both United Kingdom and foreign—to move into the Highlands in future. Who will take the risk? Who will hazard money without any hope of return because of the filibustering processes which have been adopted in this House? Who will want to take the risk of being kicked around and eventually having their objectives negated and frustrated? If that happened, it would be to the grave disadvantage of people in the Highlands.
What does the project mean in real terms? The current estimate is that it will cost £180 million to build the refinery and the marine, storage and associated facilities. Of that, £120 million will go on plant, equipment and materials. The balance of £60 million will be spent directly on wages, salaries, and so on, for the building work force.
It is estimated that £80 million worth of the cost for plant, equipment and materials can be supplied by Scottish business and industry. The company has also stated that its policy is to purchase as much as possible within Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
The plant, when completed, will provide jobs for 450 employees directly, indirectly for another 450 employees, and 1,800 employees will be engaged in construction.
It is estimated that in the first three years of operation £33 million in operational costs will be injected into the United Kingdom's economy.
These figures are evidently known to those who are in opposition to the project, but they choose to ignore them. The vested interests which have conducted the campaign against this project—not only Mr. Nightingale, but others—have chosen to ignore statements made publicly throughout the whole operation by the company.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman had more than sufficient time, both on Thursday and tonight, to state his case.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wells: Disgraceful.

Mr. McCartney: I have no intention of giving way.

Mr. Wells: Because the hon. Gentleman cannot answer.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman had more than sufficient time to express himself. Some comments were made on Thursday night which, in my view, should be answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the company as "a bucket-shop company", He failed to specify what he meant by that term, out it was clear from his remarks that the term was derogatory, and at the very least be doubted the viability of the company and the integrity of its executives.
There are various kinds of buckets. In the steel works there are huge ladles for carrying molten metal. It is necessary to put a considerable amount of material into those buckets before getting anything out of them. In Glasgow a whisky measure is a bucket. The contents of the buckets in the bars here would not dirty the glass in one's hand. Nevertheless, the bucket is a measure and it is possible to get out of it only what is put in.
It is important to consider what the company proposes to put into the project. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is not present. On Thursday evening he made several statements which his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) supported tonight. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury had the gall to make those statements. As a business man and a former Tory Minister he must be aware of the way in which money is brought together in a package. He has probably been engaged in similar operations. The way in which the Cromarty Petroleum Company has stated that it will bring together the money for this investment is similar to the way in which money is brought together for any operation of this kind. The company stated publicly that it intended to invest in the project £40 million of its own money.

Mr. Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that?

Mr. McCartney: The balance would be found in hard currency—perhaps German marks, United States dollars or some of each—through British banks in the way that is done in similar operations.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman has had sufficient time in which to express his views. It is notable that those who seek to protect one party involved from personal attack used most of their time on Thursday and tonight indulging in personal attacks on hon. Members—

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was interrupted four or five times when I was seeking to defend my constituent and I gave way on each occasion. Is it not deplorable that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman has enough experience to know that is not a point of order.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I am not giving way, but I shall reply—

Mr. Wells: Disgraceful.

Mr. McCartney: I did not intervene in the speech made by the hon. Member for Maidstone. I am not attacking the gentleman he was defending and I have no intention of doing so. What I said was that those who are opposed to the proposal sought to defend the gentleman concerned during the whole course of the debate on Thursday and today, and engaged continuously in innuendo and personal attack. It is on record.
The investment in North Sea oil is an example of how package deals of this sort have been organised. Who will suggest that the oil companies have been responsible for the total investment in North Sea oil, except in the sense of organising it? I understand that $14½ billion has been spent on the development of the North Sea, $4 billion of which has come from the oil companies themselves.
On Wednesday night my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) stated that the members of Transport and General Workers' Union were opposed to this project. He listed the names of the sites at which those members were employed. My hon. Friend also referred to a Mr. Neil Boner, who happens to be convener at the Grangemouth works. Mr. Boner and I happen to be members of the TGWU. I know that Mr. Boner is a highly respected trade union member. He is certainly highly respected not only within the industry in which he works but also within trade union circles at large. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr would remind my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian of our experience of the Dock Work Regulation Bill in Committee. We experienced exactly the same kind of campaign from hon. Members opposite, from their friends outside this House and from the national newspapers. They tried to turn worker against worker, union against union, factory against factory and employer against employer in order that their purpose of destroying that Bill could be achieved.
That campaign was carried on inside and outside this House. I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian—is there not a possibility that this is a similar campaign being conducted by vested interests who do not wish to see this project proceeded with?
I would tell my hon. Friend what the actual policy of the TGWU is in connection with the proposed development in Ross and Cromarty. I am in day to day, week to week, contact with Transport House on matters affecting our members in every industry. Not one single member of our group has received a complaint from the membership or a request from Transport House to intervene against this proposal. I went to Harry Urwin, the deputy general secretary of the TGWU and put it to him straight. I asked him: "Harry, is the TGWU officially opposed to the development at Ross and Cromarty?" He told me: "I am unaware of any decision made by our union and no suggestion has been made to me that the Transport and General Workers' Union is opposed to this policy."
I telephoned the regional office in Glasgow and spoke to the regional officer who among other things is responsible for this industry. I was informed by him that, so far as the region was concerned, he had no knowledge of any decision being made by the TGWU to oppose this project.
We are all aware that the Scottish Trades Union Congress unanimously supports this project. Sitting on the STUC General Council are officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union. We also know that the Highland Regional Authority, and others, are in support of the project as is the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
On Thursday night I heard some astonishing remarks made about the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). There are very few members of that organisation who would agree with me politically. I do not know of many occasions, when they have entered the political battlefield, when I agreed with them. But no one can deny the role that Council has played in the efforts to regenerate Scottish industry. No one can take that from the Council.
It is unlikely that those who have been in opposition to the Scottish Council would want to be on that Council—except with a view to destroying it from within. The Council has done a magnificent job, not only on its own, but in co-operation with other bodies in Scotland endeavouring to introduce new and develop existing industries.

Mr. Buchanan: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his flow. Is he aware that the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, Professor Alexander, moved in the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) that this project should be supported and that that proposal was unanimously adopted?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend has anticipated what I was about to say.
Hon. Members have received a letter from the Ross and Cromarty constituency Labour Party, whom no one could accuse of supporting politically the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. That letter categorically supports the project. I remind not only my hon. Friends from Scotland but my hon. Friends from England and Wales that for many years at successive annual conferences of the Scottish Council of the Labour Party and the Labour Party we have given commitments to the people of the Highlands, to our colleagues and the people they represent, and we have endeavoured to honour those commitments. Our commitment to the Highlands and Islands Development Board has been an example. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is not here tonight, is very proud of the rôle that he has played in the setting up of that board.

Mr. Hector Monro: Where is he?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Members who are opposed to this project are the very hon. Members who were opposed to

Question accordingly agreed to.

that. I had hoped that they had learned their lesson.

More recently the setting up of the Scottish Development Agency, which acts in co-operation with the Highlands and Islands Development Board, has helped to improve the present situation and the potential of the Highlands, and that has been another example of our honouring our commitments.

Bearing all that in mind, I ask my hon. Friends to support the proposal that this project should go ahead. A service would be done to hon. Members and to the public at large if some of the Press comments on this issue were referred to the Press Council. Never before have I read such gutter rubbish from journalists in the newspapers that have written about these matters. Seldom in industrial issues, when people's livelihoods are discussed, have there been such racial overtones denigrating those thought to be a danger to those represented by the writers. Mr. Ludwig was described as a mid-European gentleman although he was born and brought up in America. We have heard talk about "an Anglo-Indian gentleman" and about the fund raiser being foreign, in a way calculated to influence people.

It is imperative that this project be allowed to go on and that the House should reject any attempt to delay the process further. This will affect not only present workers but future generations of workers who will be brought into the area because of the promises made.

Question put, That the Bill be now considered:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes, 9.

Division No. 341.
AYES
[12.51 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
English, Michael
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Small, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gray, Hamish
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Buchanan, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Tinn, James


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Carmichael, Neil
McCartney, Hugh
Watt, Hamish


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
MacCormick, Iain
Weatherill, Bernard


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Welsh, Andrew


Corrie, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, James (Pollok)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Crawford, Douglas
Oakes, Gordon



Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dempsey, James
Reid, George
Mr. Jim Lester and


Doig, Peter
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Ian Campbell.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)





NOES


Corbett, Robin
Moate, Roger



Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. J. W. Rooker and


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. John Wells.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Bill considered accordingly.

Schedule

CROMARTY PETROLEUM

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Moate: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 25, at end add 'by way of long lease'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall also take the following amendments:
No. 3, in page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
'4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Company may require the owners of the lands delineated on the deposited plan and described in the deposited book of reference to grant a 99-year lease of the said lands at an annual rental to the Company solely for the purpose of establishing the marine terminal facilities and crude oil refinery and associated storage facilities mentioned in the preamble to this Order or for any purpose connected therewith or ancillary thereto.
(2) The terms of the lease which shall include a landscaping clause by default of agreement between the Company and the owners shall be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the Professor of Conveyancing at Edinburgh University.
(3) The powers of the Company to requisition a lease under this section shall not be exercised after 31st December 1978.
(4) The costs, charges and expenses of obtaining the lease shall be met by the Company.'
No. 5, in page 3, line 35, at end insert—
'(4) The Company shall not dispose of by any means the lands acquired under this Act prior to 31st December 1978, provided that if the powers under this section have not been activated by 31st December 1978 the Company shall return ownership of the lands to those who were the owners prior to this Act.'

Mr. Moate: Now that the House has decided that the Bill deserves further consideration, I hope that hon. Members who have taken a different line on the principles of the matter will now consider that amendment on its merits and decide that it deserves their support.
It has been maintained all along that it is not necessary compulsorily to purchase this land or transfer the freehold of the land to the company to enable the oil refinery to proceed. The whole purpose of the amendment is to provide for the company to receive the land, but on the basis of a 99-year lease.
Earlier I quoted an extract from Mr. Maycock's report in which he cast doubt on the reasons for the company proceeding in this way because they had been offered a 99-year lease by Mr. Michael Nightingale on behalf of the trustees of the estate. He was satisfied that a lease was a valid proposition. Not even the most optimistic of us expects that the lifetime of the oilfield will be as long as 99 years. One lives in hopes, but 99 years is surely far beyond the lifetime of oilfields as considered by most of us.
In the normal course of events the matter would be negotiable on the basis of a 99-year lease, and it will be argued that this was a matter that was considered by the Parliamentary Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who was one of the Parliamentary Commissioners, made the point that he regarded a lease as an unsatisfactory arrangement principally because much of the land would have to be dredged away and a lease would not be appropriate in such circumstances. I draw attention to the headings of a draft lease sent to the company which would have covered this point. That presented no problem. The draft lease said that if there were any variation in the plan which had the effect of reducing the solid land owned by the landlord at the end of the lease the tenant would transfer an equivalent acreage of his own land adjoining the northern boundary to the site at no charge. It may be that that is not a satisfactory offer. I make the point that the dredging aspect had been considered fully by the owner of the land and was not an insufferable objection.
In that respect I regret to say that the Parliamentary Commissioners did not give the fullest consideration to this matter. This question of the lease has been a source of great argument over the years. I cannot see why a genuine offer of a lease could not have been accepted by the company. Had it gone in with a will to negotiate a lease the whole matter could have been settled a long time ago. I believe that the company has rejected genuine offers of a lease for one reason. I have been given a considerable amount of the correspondence between Mr. Nightingale and Cromarty Petroleum or its solicitors. This suggests that genuine offers have been made and that the company has been determined from


the beginning not to accept a lease. It has stated its objections, which may or may not be valid. Personally, until such time as the company advances rather stronger reasons it will seem to me that the main reason must be that a leasehold arrangement reduces in many respects the resale value of the land. That is the only overriding objection I can see. If the company accepts the lease it would strengthen its case for the acquisition of the land.
The amendment says that the land shall be acquired by lease and it lays down the terms on which it should be done. The company said that it would be hard to negotiate appropriate arrangements, for landscaping, for example. It said that it would be difficult to negotiate agreeable terms when the owner of the land was avowedly against the concept. The amendment makes it clear that these matters can be settled by an arbitrator:
appointed by the Professor of Conveyancing at Edinburgh University.
What could be more reasonable than that? If Parliament decides that the project should proceed the owner of the land, or the man acting for the trustees, has said that he will reluctantly accept that. He has said that he will negotiate a lease in good faith.

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when these alleged leases were offered to Cromarty Petroleum and what were their terms? Is he also suggesting that in these amendments the landlord and Mr. Nightingale should retain feudal rights over what should take place on the land?

Mr. Moate: I do not wish to bore the House by reading all of the leases. I shall refer briefly to them because there seems to have been some misleading of the public and the House by the company. It may even be that the hon. Member has not been as fully informed as he ought to have been if he has been in contact with the company, and I gather from his earlier remarks that he is fairly well informed on this.

Mr. McCartney: I was one of the Commissioners.

Mr. Moate: I did not appreciate that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made the point.
I said that there has been some misleading. I refer to the advertisement published in many newspapers. I quote the Ross-shire Journal of 8th October:
No actual lease has been offered to the company by the landowner.
It went on to quote matters that I have already dealt with.
Frankly, it is almost untrue. It is certainly a half-truth. Technically, no actual lease was offered. But when does one go into negotiations offering a complete lease? One starts with the heads of agreement and proceeds from there. That normal procedure was adopted.

Mr. Wells: As I understood it, Mr. Nightingale offered a lease to the company immediately before the hearing.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for another hon. Member to intervene when the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is answering a question put to him in a previous intervention?

Mr. Wells: Of course it is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I need some help from the hon. Member. I shall be prepared to ask for it, Mr. Moate.

Mr. Moate: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells).

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For verification, may I ask whether you were speaking to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) or to me? I was not giving you advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was asking you a question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To answer the hon. Member's point, I was addressing the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells).

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I was seeking to make was that I understood that Mr. Nightingale offered a lease before the hearing in Edinburgh in front of the Commissioners, in general terms, but then, as on all subsequent occasions, the company and its agents were most cavalier in their treatment of Mr. Nightingale, as they have been most cavalier in their treatment of this House.

Mr. Moate: No doubt my hon. Friend can and will elaborate that point. I shall not disagree. However, I should like to feel at present that one could help to bring the parties together. When one tries to retread the ground in such disputes over the years, one has great problems about who started the dispute, and so on. This matter has an unfortunate history of unnecessary conflict which could and should have been re solved earlier—that is, assuming the good faith of the company, which let us assume in the absence of evidence, although the company could have produced greater evidence of its financial credibility.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) asked when the lease was offered. I have one letter dated 30th April 1976, which I presume—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—would follow fairly soon after the meeting of the Commissioners in Edinburgh. It is a three-page letter. It would be unfair to read the whole of the letter. However, it set out 11 headings for a lease. It offered a 99-year lease. It talked about a rental of £7,500 a year—10 per cent. of the capital sum—and said,
but if this is not acceptable to you, would you accept any figure put forward by a mutually accepted arbiter.
Is that unfair? Only a few weeks ago the company said that it had never been offered a lease. This letter gives the lie to that statement.
The letter mentions a rent review clause, which is again a very fair point, and a guarantee. It mentions assignment, use and plans. I quoted earlier the clause about the dredging effects on the foreshore. The letter mentions termination of lease, and the landscape—a clause that has given grounds for comment.
I suppose that technically it is not a lease. Mr. Nightingale, who is only one of the trustees, had to say that it could not be a legal offer. But those were sensible requirements that he had to put into his letter. In no way did that detract from the fact that this was a genuine and very reasonable offer.
1.15 a.m.
I think that the company has been misleading in its statements. As far back as 1974 there is a letter from Mr. Nightingale saying that should the company be

successful in obtaining planning permission for this project, then
under these circumstances we should be prepared to consider granting a lease for 60 years".
Subsequently that offer was increased to 99 years. The letter goes on to mention that any such lease would have to exclude two areas of land which already form the subject of a lease to Highland Fabricators. The letter concludes:
May I say, finally, that our reason for not wishing to sell is that this land has formed part of the Cromarty Estate for hundreds of years and we wish it to continue this way.
Here are two examples where Mr. Nightingale made genuine offers to the company to arrange a lease, but the company, in response, has never come forward and said "Yes". Quite categorically, it has said "No". If anybody has prevented a lease being signed, it is not Mr. Nightingale but the company.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is not here, but I know that through his good offices he tried to arrange a meeting recently to negotiate a lease, and a few weeks later the company said quite categorically why it could not accept a lease, I do not think its reasons are very convincing.
The first reason is that no reasonable company could, except in exceptional circumstances, make itself subject to the vagaries of a lease to a private landlord who now declares himself adamantly opposed to the use to which the lease is to be put. That does not stand up, because once the landlord has accepted the use to which the land is to be put, I do not think that a properly negotiated lease will allow the landlord to be unreasonable in its operation.
In this House we are quite accustomed to objecting to something in principle, but once we have lost we try to produce more satisfactory arrangements. Once the principle of the refinery has been accepted, a lease can be negotiated.
Then the company refers to Mr. Nightingale's insistence on retaining in any lease an authority which would enable him deliberately to construct in a critical area of the project. This is just not true, because the planning conditions or any other landscaping conditions could be settled by arbitration, as offered in the amendment.
The last one is hardly an objection at all, because the company refers again to landscaping, and landscaping clauses which are not unreasonable could be settled by arbitration.
I have no wish to labour the point. The evidence is there that there have been genuine offers by Mr. Nightingale for a lease to be negotiated. Assuming that it is finally decided that the refinery should go ahead, I fail to understand why the company has not operated in what I would describe as a sensible commercial manner by endeavouring to negotiate. Apparently it has jeopardised the whole project through these parliamentary processes, and brought upon itself great publicity which cannot have been welcome to it, simply because it failed to negotiate a lease. It could have done that. The manner in which it has behaved does not create in me a very good impression of its skills in managing its affairs. If it were a subsidiary company of mine, and if I were in Mr. Ludwig's position, I should be rather displeased with the way in which the matter has proceeded. I should be wanting to ask "Why did you not negotiate a lease a couple of years ago when you could have done?"
But now the qunestion is for the House, because we are concerned with what happens to this land after the refinery has been completed—or, indeed, if the refinery should not proceed. This arrangement for a 99-year lease would allow some degree of control not over the refinery project itself—although no doubt that could be negotiated—but over what happens if the landlord does not proceed, because the landlord could say that it shall not be used for a chemical works or any other industrial project without proper agreement. At the end of the 99 years, the land would revert—

Mr. Dalyell: Is not it a fact that if a lease were negotiated in these circumstances, the value of the land in the event of anyone wanting to sell it would be greatly diminished if it were a lease rather than an outright sale?

Mr. Moate: That is one of the doubts in one's mind about the intentions of the company. It could well reduce the value of the land for further industrial projects. But we are giving special powers in this

case for a refinery, and it is to that that we must limit this sanction.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not very unsatisfactory on these delicate and important issues that there is no one present representing the promoters of the Bill? I do not think that it is right to ask an Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to answer for this. He has no responsibility in the matter. It is very unsatisfactory that there is no one representing the sponsors of the Bill. Will you consider suspending the proceedings until they return?

Mr. Monro: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I deal with one point of order at a time, if it is a point of order? The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will be well aware that it is not a matter over which I can exercise any control.

Mr. Munro: Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is being a little unreasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has been away getting some papers. Having got them, he is now back with us and ready to go into action again.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order. I realised that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) may have had to go out. That is why I asked for the suspension of the proceedings until he had an opportunity to come back.

Mr. Moate: The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty are very important in this respect because, although the Bill has no promoter in this House, he is the man whose views count and carry a great deal of weight, apparently, with both Front Benches. I have always considered him a man of considerable influence and power. We were informed today that he was the important man in all this, and quite rightly. I regret, therefore, if he was not in the Chamber to hear me say that there had been genuine offers of leases in recent years. I shall not reiterate my arguments for his benefit, but I have the feeling that he may well decide to


answer them without actually having heard them, which is rather unfortunate.
Perhaps I might reiterate for my hon. Friend's benefit the simple point that a genuine offer of a lease was made, not technically a lease but the fair headings of a lease, and I quoted the date of 30th April 1976. It is because of that that this latest statement by my company is way off the truth.
In my view, a lease would not prevent the refinery going ahead. A satisfactory lease can be negotiated between Mr. Nightingale and the company. In fact, if this amendment is passed, it will have to be negotiated, because the amendment lays down the arbitration conditions, and so on, on which it can be done. In this way, the House would be producing a satisfactory conclusion to this matter which would meet the needs of all the parties. It would give back to this House that degree of control which is necessary because of the many anxieties which must exist in the minds of opponents and supporters alike.
In the interests of the people of the area and those of all the parties, I hope that this amendment will be supported.

Mr. Dalyell: In unvituperative terms. I wish to ask the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), since it should be addressed to him, one question against the background of what appears to some of us to be the fact that Mr. Ludwig and Cromarty Petroleum are putting very little, if any, of their own money into this project. My question is this: Is it not a fact that in the event of something going wrong about the project and a refinery not materialising, if there is not a 99-year lease—and I have no brief for Mr. Nightingale—the value of the land at sale would be significantly more than if there was a 99-year lease and that it could be said to be a financial encumbrance in the event of the sale of the land in certain circumstances? The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has an obligation to comment on that, if not to answer the question.

Mr. Gray: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the best answer I can. I am advised that it is a clearly established principle of compulsory purchase law that where land is authorised to be compulsorily acquired by statute for some particular

purpose it cannot be used for a purpose other than that for which it was acquired.

Mr. Dalyell: Let us get the matter absolutely clear. If that is the case, if a refinery for some reason or other did not go ahead the land could not be sold for other purposes. Is that what it amounts to?

Mr. Gray: As I understand it, yes. But I must make it clear that I am not an advocate or solicitor. I have been advised by the Parliamentary Agents in this instance because I raised the same query myself.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty should not have been put in the position of having to answer such a question. Whatever one's view on the subject, I refuse to believe that the Private Bill procedure is the way in which the House should deal with such an issue. The Minister might say that he has no responsibility for the matter, and I accept that that is probably true, but heaven knows that Governments of all parties have access to all sorts of legal advice and one of the Law Officers should be on the Front Bench to advise on and answer such questions. I invite the Minister to comment on what I have said. He may say that he has none to make, and in the present circumstances I cannot quarrel with him if that is his attitude.

Mr. Wells: I rise with a degree of sorrow because the only defence for Mr. Ludwig and the company during the debate on the amendment has come from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) who has left the Chamber. He was unwilling to give way, unwilling to answer questions and followed the tradition of Parliamentary agents in such matters in that he was totally unforthcoming with information. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was lucky to acquire some information. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central was most discourteous in his unwillingness to give way when other hon. Members have given way. It appeared to me that he was speaking for the company from a company brief and, like the company, he lacked the courtesy and common sense to give way.
1.30 a.m.
Ministers have shrugged their shoulders, or perhaps I should say that they have drawn them in to try to appear a little more slender and less responsible in the matter, saying that it is private legislation, that they know nothing about it and so on. Yet they have forced it upon the House.
It is my faint hope that even at this hour the House may come to its senses and support Mr. Nightingale's plea that there be a lease. He offered that from the beginning. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty said that he understood that land compulsorily purchased could be used only for the purpose for which it was compulsorily purchased.
I know that the cry "I told you so" is seldom popular, but I believe that in a year or two, or perhaps three, those of us who have opposed this matter will be saying to Ministers of the day "We told you so". We believe that Ministers have been taken for a ride by a £100 company trying to expropriate a substantial land owner, a man of good taste and good sense who has offered leases and has offered to meet the company in any way. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central has exactly exemplified the company's attitude—dictatorial, unwilling to meet us, unwilling to listen to the arguments, and then going home or whatever.
This is a late hour to be arguing. I sincerely hope that the House will accept the amendment in favour of a lease. I hope that the amendment will be pushed to a vote, because I believe this to be our last chance to make some common sense out of this very sad measure. If we are carried away by the crass folly of the Scottish Office, and if the payroll vote comes in yet again to vote down common sense, I hope that in two or three years' time those Ministers on the Front Bench tonight will look as silly as I think they are now.

Mr. Rooker: I wish to address a few remarks to my Amendment No. 5. I must declare no interest. I have never met Mr. Nightingale or had correspondence with him or discussed with him or his agents the content of the amendment. It is on the Order Paper for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) and my hon. Friend

the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
There is great doubt about whether the company intends to proceed, or will be able to do so, once it has the powers in the Bill. If it does not, what happens to the 47 acres in question? The powers to acquire the land expire on 31st December 1978. That is a very short time for such a project, which has now been going on for about four years. My amendment says that if the powers are not used by then the land should, in all equity, be returned to the present owner. That does not seem a matter to argue about.
It might be said that it will be easy for the company to proceed in the next two years. If it proceeds, that is fine, but here we come to the nub of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) said that the project was like any other project of a large company. He is wrong. Built into the order is a requirement that the company must obtain all the required capital of £180 million before moving on to the 47-acre site. This requirement is buried in Section 16 of the Land Clauses Act 1845.

Mr. Wells: I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about Amendment No. 5, but may I put to him the problem which Mr. Nightingale will face if his land is returned having been bought from him for a sum on which he will have had to pay capital gains tax? With inflation at its present rate, Mr. Nightingale would have to buy back in 1978 at a new district valuer's valuation when the money which he had received had been eroded. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which propose leasing, are surely more attractive because Mr. Nightingale would be on all fours. Taxation and inflation would put him in grave danger if we followed the procedure outlined in Amendment No. 5.

Mr. Rooker: Many of my amendments were probing amendments to give me the chance to make points which I have not been able to make during our other debates. If nothing else, the hon. Gentleman has shown that there has been no collusion between me and the hon. Members opposite—although we may have discussed the sort of amendments which could be moved, having been told originally that it would be difficult to table amendments


which would be selected. I could not find a form of words to enable the guy to get his land back without being financially crippled for the rest of his life.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If I read the hon. Gentleman's amendment without any special interpretation, it seems that on 31st December 1978 the company would have to return the land to Mr. Nightingale without any payment at all. There is no reference in the amendment to an offer back to Mr. Nightingale or to anything relating to compensation.

Mr. Rooker: Perhaps I drafted it better than I thought. My intention has been to highlight the fact that the company must, before December 1978, have secured all the capital required and have certified it with a sheriff in Scotland as being available.
There is a good chance that this may not happen. Mr. Nightingale will be fully protected because even when the Bill has gone through Parliament, it has no effect until the company has secured the capital and obtained the certificate.
The company may say that it is unable to meet the requirements of this legislation which is more than 100 years old. Therefore it seems reasonable that if the company does not or cannot proceed it should not be left owning a large block of land, including 47 acres giving access to the foreshore.
Acquisition of an access point always makes land more valuable. Sometimes a piece of land just wide enough for a lorry can increase the value of a whole site by 10 or 20 times. I do not believe that this company should be put in that position because it has not been able to raise the necessary capital.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a point which he made earlier regarding the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. I have this on the authority of Mr. Phil Durham, of Scotsburn, Ross-shire, who says:
Apart from the incorrect assertion on the company returns that this institute is incorporated in Liberia, it is most interesting that the articles of the institute in Zurich allow the funds to be used only for cancer research with the one notable exception that it can buy land. It is not allowed to rent land, nor, as far as can be discovered, can it become the holding company for Cromarty Petroleum Company Ltd.

I think that someone ought to clear up this matter, because it pertains to the issue being raised by my hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will clear up this point which has been made before in the House.

Mr. Rooker: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has no intention of doing that. I am surprised, considering some of the accusations that I made last Thursday, that, before the debate, that charge, notwithstanding all the others that I made about the structure and articles of association of the organisation in Zurich, has not been refuted in any way, shape or form by the promoters of the Bill. There has been no letter, circular, or statement to the Press.
I pointed out on Thursday that the articles of association of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research in Zurich enable it to carry out medical research and to buy and sell land, not to run a tankship company or an oil refinery. Therefore, that organisation cannot be operating legally under either Swiss or British law.
No one seems to be bothered about finding an answer to that assertion. It may be thought not to be a serious point. But I think that it is a serious point. For example, by the end of December 1978 the company, for reasons beyond its control, may not be able to build the oil refinery. Therefore, it is not fair or equitable that, because of a vast increase in land value, the effect of inflation, a drop in the value of sterling, and having an access point to 47½ acres of foreshore, it should make a fantastic profit. I do not care whether the owner of the 47½ acres is a co-op, a trade union or an absentee landowner. The fact remains that it would not be fair if that situation were to arise.
That is why I put down Amendment No. 5. I accept that in many ways it is defective, if put into the Bill, could cause considerable problems. Therefore, if there is to be a Division on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I shall gladly vote for them as alternatives to my suggestion.
No one has given any answers to the questions which I have posed. The company is not prepared to make a statement. Ministers have kept far away from the Bill. Indeed, I should be the first to ask for their heads on chargers, because,


when this proposal fails—there is a good chance that it will—they will not be able to say that they were not warned about all the problems which would arise.
If there had been no history of companies being formed and going defunct in connection with this land and different personalities becoming involved, there would be no basis for the charges that I have made. But we need go back only 10 years to see the personalities involved. If this project fails it will show a high degree of incompetence on the part of the Parliamentary Agents, the company, the managers, the people in the area who support it and the Government. No Minister has said that the Government will support the objects of the Bill or that the facilities to be provided are required in the national interest. An amendment which has not been selected would have required them to do that as part and parcel of passing the Bill.
1.45 a.m.
The Government will not be able to get out of it in future if the project collapses. I hope that it does not. I hope that the oil refinery is built and that it is of benefit to the national economy, but all the evidence suggests that there will not be a refinery and, if there is, that it will not benefit the economy. If the project does not materialise there will be a hell of a row. Ministers will not be able to say that they were required to do nothing but bring this private legislation before the House. More than 18 months ago the Scottish Office was warned of certain matters behind the Bill, before it reached the House, but they took no action. Ministers from the Scottish Office, the Department of Energy and the Treasury have all been warned, but no action was taken.
It is nothing short of a scandal that this legislation can be passed by the House without a Minister saying that he approves of it. If a Division is called I shall have no alternative but to vote to insert in the Bill a safeguard to ensure that it is fair to the people in the area, land owners and the House. The people who are sitting around in areas I am not supposed to mention regard the House as a laughing-stock because of what happened here tonight. They will continue

to laugh as the Bill passes through the House of Lords and becomes law.
One day there will be an outcry when the company collapses because it cannot get the capital to go ahead, but, bingo, the company has the land. It is incumbent upon the House to accept the amendments, which contain nothing to wreck the Bill's aims. The oil refinery will last for only 40 to 50 years. How can an amendment providing for a 99-year lease be said to be a wrecking amendment? If my amendment is not accepted I shall seriously question the motives of those who promote and support the Bill inside and outside the House.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): I would not have intervened but for the criticism of the Government for their attitude to this private legislation, made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). In my intervention on Thursday I tried to make clear the nature of the Government's stand. The Bill comes to the House under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman may not like that, but we are all presumed to have an intelligence and can make our own judgment. The simple duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland is to lay the Bill before the House after it has been fully examined by the Commissioners—two from each House. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member may not like the procedure—I must confess, having endured all of this over the last few months, that I am not sure that I am wildly enthusiastic about it myself—but that is the procedure under which this Bill comes before the House of Commons.
Amendments Nos 2 and 3 seem to be the whole purpose of the Bill itself. We have had a wide ranging discussion about refinery policy, money, and everything else. I suppose that if the promoters of the Bill had found it acceptable they would not have found it necessary to go before the Commissioners and object. It is therefore for the promoters to say whether or not they regard such amendments as acceptable.
The whole purpose of the Bill is concerned with the way in which land is to be obtained. The arguments for compulsory acquisition have been examined


fully by the Commissioners from both Houses. I can only conclude by suggesting that the Commissioners, having found these arguments acceptable, have put them forward through the form in the Bill.
Hon. Members are also concerned about what will happen if the company does not carry out its intention to build the refinery. Would it be able to sell the land with the benefit of planning permission? It is an argument that I well understand from my own days in local authorities. However, I am advised that the conditions attached to the planning permission ensure that if work on the refinery does not start, and is not continued steadily, the planning permission will lapse—the company will still have the land but it will have no planning permission.
I want to refer to some of the conditions. A master plan of the development showing its phasing, must be submitted within six months, but because of delays caused by the Bill the company has had to seek an extension of this period from the local authority. When the master plan has been approved a contract for the design and construction of the refinery must be placed within four months. Plans and elevations showing the details of the buildings, jetties, piers and the process plant must be submitted within 10 months and final details showing exterior finishes and so on, within a further nine months. Work on the underground storage—an important feature of development—must be started within 12 months of planning permission and the construction work must be continuous.
A breach of any of these conditions would result in the lapse of the planning permission. It is therefore not possible for the company simply to sit on the land, do nothing and resell it with the benefit of planning permission.
I intervene only to indicate what I understand are the facts of the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment proposed, page 2, line 25—

Mr. Moate: Mr. Moate rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak again he will have to ask the leave of the House.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I understand that the Question was being proposed by yourself and that it was too late for any other hon. Member to take part in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had not, in fact, completed putting the Question. If I see any hon. Gentleman wanting to speak before I have taken the voices it is my duty to call him. If the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) wants to speak again he will have to ask the leave of the House.

Mr. Gray: The Minister dealt with the points fairly well. I want to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I have been able to get the answer on this. The situation, as I understand it, is that the institute is permitted to buy and own land in order to enable it to set up whatever laboratory and technical establishments are necessary to conduct its medical research. But it must, by definition, also be able to raise and have access to funds to carry out its research. That is implicit in its purpose as a medical research body.
The institute draws its funds from the beneficial ownership of shares in a large international company—Universe Tank Ships Incorporated—as do many charitable bodies and trusts in this country and elsewhere. The Ludwig Institute does not operate a tank ship company any more than the Nuffield Foundation or the Ford Foundation operated the car firms when they were set up in a similar way.

Mr. Dalyell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy, but may I be clear on one thing? Is it right or wrong to say that no Ludwig money is going into this project of Cromarty Petroleum? I am genuinely hazy about this. As I understand it, no Ludwig money is being put into this project. If I am wrong, I should be told so.

Mr. Gray: That is a difficult question to answer. As I understand it, some money from Ludwig companies is going into the project. In other words, Universe Tank Ships is certainly putting money into the project.

Mr. Dalyell: How much?

Mr. Gray: I am not in a position to say exactly how much, but I think that


the original amount was about £62½ million. I am not in a position to confirm that at the moment. The company is providing a large amount of the capital and the remainder is being arranged in the way that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) described, and in a way common to merchant banks in this country when arranging a package of this nature.
The Parliamentary Agents have given me information or guidance on the amendments. It has been pointed out that Amendment No. 5 could not be accepted. Perhaps the amendment proceeds on the assumption that the powers under this provision are powers for the construction of the marine terminal facilities, but that is not the content of paragraph 4 of the order, which is not directed to authorising this development. The company is already authorised in the main by the grant of planning permission empowering it to acquire compulsorily the 47½ acres of foreshore land which it has been unable to acquire on such terms by agreement. If the powers under this provision have not been activated by 31st December 1978, the company will not have any land to return to the ownership of those who were the owners prior to the order becoming law.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke with strength, but in these matters we have to be guided by the parliamentary draftsmen, who can interpret the amendment and advise us whether it is a practical proposition.
2.0 a.m.
Amendment No. 2 is a lead-in to Amendment. No. 3.
The company would not be prepared to accept such an amendment. I am in considerable sympathy with the company on this point. It is to invest a considerable sum, and there will be a great deal of Government money attracted as well. It feels that it could not invest this kind of money without ownership of the land.
The company could not enter into a lease with the present owner, for several reasons. First, in his petition to the House earlier this year the landowner said that he was strongly opposed to the concept of an oil refinery or oil storage of any kind at Nigg Point. He

later qualified that by saying that in the event of planning permission being granted he would try to procure the granting of a lease. But the company feels that the conditions that he would insist upon would not be acceptable to it. Except in exceptional circumstances, no reasonable company makes itself subject to the vagaries of a lease with a private landlord who declares himself adamantly opposed to the uses to which the land will be put.
The landlord does seem to chop and change on this subject. At one stage we hear that he is totally opposed to the project, at another that he accepts it on the terms of a lease, and on yet another that he might be interested in participating. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) rightly defended his constituent, but he was less than fair in some of the things that he said, and certainly some of the things that he insinuated, about the company.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member has said something very important—that the company is putting in massive sums of its own money. He knows me well enough to know that I would never laugh at anyone's name—heaven knows, my own is complicated enough—but on 1st October, in the Daily Telegraph, whose political views I do not share, one read this:
A fund-raiser sent from New York is working 'semi-permanently' in London to raise the other £144 million required.
He is Mr. Steve Stavrides, described to me last night as 'a financial expert'.
He is employed by Universe Tankships, the American parent company of Cromarty Petroleum, set up by three Americans three years ago with the sole purpose of building and operating the refinery in Scotland.
If this is inaccurate, and he is not raising the £144 million, it would be useful to be told that.

Mr. Gray: It is not my job to outline the company's financial policy on this project. I have merely said that the company is putting a substantial amount of its own money into the project and that a package is being arranged through merchant bankers, as every other similar project over the years has been arranged. The hon. Member knows how these matters are financed in the City.
The company has made it clear to me that it would obviously like to own the land. That is its first object. Second, it is not prepared to accept a lease from


Mr. Nightingale because it does not consider that relations in future would be such that it would be possible to operate without continual interference. The company and the landowner are not likely to come together and we are wasting time thinking that they might.
But the company has told me that the third possibility would have been the regional authority acquiring the land and then arranging a lease with the company. The company would be prepared to accept that. Naturally, its first desire is to own the land in which it is to invest its money.
I have tried to represent the case fairly. I wanted merely, as politely as I could, to explain the relationship between the company and the landowner.

Mr. Wells: My great anxiety in this is simple. Mr. Nightingale and his friends and neighbours, who take a view similar to his, have been at pains to let every hon. Member in any way interested have all the paper help and support required, while the company has done absolutely nothing except send out a very inadequate circular last Thursday. I am glad to know that my hon. Friend has received some useful information from the company in the last 20 minutes, but no other hon. Member has had any communication whatever from the company. It is this extremely cavalier treatment of the House by the company that has aroused my suspicions.

Mr. Gray: It was not in the last 20 minutes that I was given this information. I accept that I went to the Official Box for some clarification.
Any hon. Member who cared to ask the company for information would have been able to get it. I certainly had no difficulty. I did not have to visit the

offices of the company. It was to suit my convenience that the company came to see me at the House. I went to the company's offices to see whether there was any truth in the allegations in some Press articles. I found the company in an extremely attractive office block—modern but modest. Indeed, the Department of the Environment could do worse than have a look at those offices and see how they are furnished, inexpensively compared with some of its offices. I was very impressed. I got satisfactory answers to all my questions and I am sure that other hon. Members would have done so.

These amendments would not be acceptable to the company.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member has again said something very important and new. Do I understand that if the project were allowed to go ahead and the regional council became, in a sense, the company's landlord, the company would enter into a leasing arrangement with the regional authority?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Member has misunderstood. I said that the company wished to proceed with this order to enable it to purchase the land. However, in the event of the House refusing to allow the company to have this compulsory purchase order, if the Highland Regional Authority decided compulsorily to acquire the land, the company would be prepared to enter into negotiations for a leasing contract with the Highland Regional Authority.

Mr. Moate: By leave of the House—

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 28.

Division No. 342.]
AYES
[2.09 a.m.



Canavan, Dennis




Skinner, Dennis




TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. J. W. Rooker and




Mr. John Wells.





NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Doig, Peter


Biffen, John
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
English, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Crawford, Douglas
Faulds, Andrew


Buchanan, Richard
Dempsey, James
Gray, Hamish




Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)
Monro, Hector
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



MacCormick, Iain
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacKenzie, Gregor
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Jim Lester and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Mr. Ian Campbell.

Question accordingly negatived.

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

MR. JORGEN THORSEN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

2.20 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I believe that the whole House will condemn the attempt of a Mr. Thorsen to make a film which he entitles "The Sex Life of Jesus Christ". This film is not only, as he admits, pornographic, but—and this I believe to be far more important—it is blasphemous. That is to say, it will be deeply resented not only by Christians, who believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but by all decent-minded people who object to objects of veneration to large sections of the community being subject to violent and unprovoked attack.
What, then, is Mr. Thorsen's objective? First, it is money; and second, as an anarchist, it is to undermine the basis of our society by degrading the sacred and by mocking the Established Church.
Support of those of the Jewish faith for their coreligionists persecuted in the Soviet Union is widespread. There has been strong support of the Sikhs in their battle to wear turbans when riding motor cycles. But because Christianity is the established religion of this country, there are some who believe that by attacking Christianity they are attacking the Establishment, and that is always considered fair game. What a row there would be if this film had been about the sex life of Abraham or Moses, Mohammed, Buddha or even Karl Marx.
The Minister will know that I first raised this matter at Question Time way back in July. The script, a copy of which I have with me, is a strange mixture of

Bible and blasphemy. It has been condemned publicly by the Prime Minister, by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—with the support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—and by Church leaders of all denominations. I know that the postbags of many hon. Members have been full of letters of protest. In my own constituency I have received many protests, ranging from that of the Beverley Borough Council to that of the South Hunsley High School, adjacent to my home, which was accompanied by a petition, which I would stress was organised by the pupils themselves. Yet we still have not received the assurances that we need.
Let me briefly examine what has happened in other countries. In Denmark the Director of the Danish Film Fund gave a grant of 900,000 kroner for making this film. This caused an uproar among the people, the church and the Press. After a long study it was decided that the film would violate Danish copyright law and the moral copyright of the four Evangelists in that it would distort the character of their work, and the filming was then declared illegal. So much for Denmark.
In Sweden I understand that a special law on film production was passed leading to a close co-operation between the Swedish Film Institute and the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation. Both partners had to support any fictional film production and the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation turned Mr. Thorsen down, so the film was not able to be made in Sweden.
In Italy Mototov cocktails were thrown at the Danish Ambassador's residence in Rome in protest, and the film was turned down. France, Spain and Germany have also refused permission. I ask the Minister, why not Britain?
I understand from a short debate in the other place that the Government maintain that they have no power to control the production of films in this country, but there is power to refuse entry to an EEC national on the grounds of public policy, public security or


public health. If they have no power to stop the making of blasphemous films, let them follow the example of the countries that I have named and change the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has already introduced a Private Member's Bill for this purpose, a copy of which I have with me.
I do not believe that the Home Secretary will allow this man in for the purpose of making the film, but one must consider the possibility of his entering for another purpose. He may even sneak in through the open door that exists with the Irish Republic. Why cannot the Minister now declare that Mr. Thorsen will not be allowed into this country, and so settle this controversy before it increases to a dangerous extent?
People have differing views on pornography, and there is no question but that the script is pornographic. The scenes purporting to describe Jesus in a brothel, the homosexuality, the orgies, the violence and the sadism, make this only too clear.
But what is far more serious, I believe, is the blasphemy. I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Mr. Thorsen makes Him a drunk and a lecher. Mr. Thorsen makes Him allow St. Mary Magdalene to commit unspeakable insults to his person as a man. Mr. Thorsen presents Him as having sexual intercourse with St. John while the disciples are singing, drinking and guzzling.
I wonder what Mr. Thorsen would have said if someone had proposed to make a similar film about the sex life of his own father. Yet he purports to make a film about the Son of the Father of mankind.
In the past the Home Secretary has excluded from this country leaders of a certain cult and also notorious gamblers. Why cannot he undertake to act in a similar manner on this occasion?
What do public policy and public security mean? Must the Home Secretary be assured that a breach of the peace will be committed if this man comes to this country? I can certainly give the Minister that assurance. There will be violence if he comes to this country. There is no doubt whatever about it. The film is a direct attack on all that

Christians hold sacred. God's laws come before man's laws, and if man's laws cannot protect the fundamentals of one's faith, one has no other option.
If Mr. Thorsen can now be told that he will not be admitted into this country, that is the end of the matter, and everybody will be delighted. If, however, the Home Secretary waits until he attempts to enter, anger will grow and public disquiet will increase. The hon. Lady will agree with me when I say that public disquiet has already manifested itself throughout the country. Mrs. Whitehouse, to whom I pay tribute for all she has done to expose this evil man, is to start a vigil outside the Home Office today. These demonstrations will spread.
As I have already said, the Minister has a good precedent. Let her end the matter now. Above all, when considering this obnoxious film, let the Minister remember the First Commandment:
Honour the Lord thy God. Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

2.28 a.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am very glad to support my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in all he has said. The Minister will know that I first raised this matter with the Home Office nearly four months ago and was shocked to learn that the then Home Secretary had no intention of stopping Thorsen from entering this country, despite the fact that the film is pornographic—those who have seen the script know that it is filthy and obscene beyond belief—despite the certainty that it will give grave offence to millions of our own people, as it has done on the Continent, despite the fact that it may give rise to disorder, as it did in Rome, and despite the fact that if such a film is made and exhibited here it will offend against our own laws of blasphemy.
I protested vigorously, as the hon. Lady knows, and was supported by thousands of people up and down the country, Christian and non-Christian, young and old. In my 26 years in this place I have never known such a volume of protest from the usually silent majority.
The well-known permissiveness of the former Home Secretary was a virtual invitation to Thorsen to come to this country to do what he had been unable to do elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Lady


will know that at that juncture I appealed to the Prime Minister over the head of her Department. To his eternal credit, the right hon. Gentleman replied to me on 4th September saying that Thorsen would be a most unwelcome and undesirable visitor to this country. One would have thought that that would have been the end of the matter. But, for weeks after, Home Office officials were sending out letters to protesters which evaded the issue and were even misleading.
In August, I had managed to wring out of the Minister of State the admission that no EEC national had a prescriptive right to enter this country. It was admitted that such a person could be excluded on grounds of public order, public safety or public health. Protesters are still being told that it would be possible to exclude Thorsen on grounds of public order should he present himself at a British port, but that the Home Secretary will not make a formal decision until such a need arises.
What is the authority for the term "public order"? It does not appear in the Treaty of Rome. The term used there is "public policy", which is much wider in its implications. It does not appear in our own immigration rules. The words used there to justify exclusion are
where this is conducive to the public good.
That is even wider, and quite sufficient to stop an unwelcome and undesirable visitor from entering.
It is perfectly true that if Thorsen entered this country there might well be a threat to public order, because vast numbers of people are outraged and very angry at the thought. But if the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, thinks that the man is an undesirable, and if his purpose, which he has announced in advance of coming here, is to break our law, why cannot the Home Secretary say quite firmly that this man will not be allowed in? Home Secretaries are quick enough to deport unwanted immigrant children. Why are they so tender about a pornographer who seeks to make money out of filth and lies and who cares nothing for the distress that he causes to all who find solace and inspiration in the example set by Jesus Christ?
The Home Secretary should summon up a little courage. There is a precedent

in the case of Yvonne van Duyn, who was very properly refused entry into this country as an undesirable and whose exclusion was upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Community. Any nation has the right to keep out undesirables and to do so openly. Why not in this case? I hope that the hon. Lady can tell us.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I have had more letters on this subject—and understandably so—than on any other since I became a Member of Parliament. I welcome this. I think that it is extremely undesirable that such a man should be admitted.

2.33 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I understand fully and sympathise with the motives of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in raising this matter and of the other hon. Members who have contributed to this brief debate.
As the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, Mr. Thorsen and his plans for a film on the life of Jesus Christ have led to an outcry which cannot often have been paralleled. My right hon. Friend and I have received several thousand letters and petitions of protest; indeed, my Department has probably received more correspondence on this issue than any other for several years. The strength of public feeling on the question is therefore very clear. Nevertheless, we have always to bear in mind that any action that we can contemplate must be within the law, and I hope to make clear the constraints imposed by the laws within which we must work, however repugnant we may find Mr. Thorsen's project.
A preliminary matter to bear in mind is that Mr. Thorsen has neither applied for permission to come nor, to our knowledge, made any firm arrangements to do so.
There are two suggestions for dealing with Mr. Thorsen. The first is that he should be prevented from entering the country. The second is that, if he does enter, he should be prevented from making the film here. I should like to deal with these suggestions separately.
As to Mr. Thorsen's entry into this country, it has to be borne in mind, first,


that he is a national of an EEC member State. This means that in the normal way he would be free to come here to work, to look for work, or to set up in business. If he is admitted, no restrictions can be placed on activities of this kind. Nationals of EEC countries are normally admitted into the United Kingdom with the minimum of formality at the port, and most of them are not questioned about their reasons for coming here.
Although the grounds on which a national of an EEC member State may be refused entry are slightly more restricted than those applying to other foreigners, nationals of EEC States are still subject to the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules made under it. They may therefore, subject to our treaty obligations, be refused leave to enter the country within those provisions.
What does the Treaty of Rome allow? Article 48, which deals with the free movement of labour, says that the right to move within the Community for this purpose is
subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health 
The exercise of these limitations is the subject of a directive issued in 1964, under which measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.
In other words, an EEC national, even if he is seeking to come here to work, may be excluded on public policy grounds if his personal conduct justifies it—always provided that there are appropriate powers of exclusion in our domestic law. And, of course, there are. The immigration rules do not themselves use the phrase "public policy" but they provide that a person who requires leave to enter this country, as does Mr. Thorsen, may be refused it on the grounds that his exclusion is conducive to the public good. The relevant rule is Rule 65 of the Rules for Control on Entry of EEC and other non-Commonwealth Nationals: HC 81.
It is one thing to have powers of exclusion. Whether there are grounds for exercising those powers in a particular case is a different issue. The burden of many of the representations that are being

made to my right hon. Friend is that he should decide now—and say now—that Mr. Thorsen will not be admitted to this country. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is not disposed to do that. In the first place, there is really no definite evidence that Mr Thorsen will seek to come here. He has been talking about making this offensive film since as long ago as 1970, and he has stated his intention to make it here. Everything that we know about him suggests that he thrives on publicity, and he is certainly getting plenty of it from the great amount of attention that is being paid in this country to his ideas. I am not at all sure that it would be sensible, even if there were not other objections, to give Mr. Thorsen additional publicity by solemnly banning him—and perhaps providing an incentive to try to prove his point by seeking to come here when he might otherwise not have done so. Indeed, he has not tried to do so up to now.
But this apart, I remind the hon. Member that the admission of a would-be immigrant, however distasteful he may be, is a matter in which my right hon. Friend and the Home Office have to be seen to act fairly, with discretion and, indeed, quasi-judicially. It is the more important that my right hon. Friend should do so when a refusal of entry may become the subject of an appeal or even of proceedings in the European Court or before the European Commission of Human Rights. What my right hon. Friend is being asked to do is to say that in what is now a hypothetical situation—Mr. Thorsen's arrival at a port—we shall refuse him entry whenever he comes.
My right hon. Friend has said that he does not consider it right to act in that way. He has not, let me make it crystal clear, said that Thorsen will not be denied admission. All that he has said—and surely the hon. Member will accept that it is a perfectly sensible thing to say—is that a decision, if one has to be reached, will be reached in the light of all the facts and circumstances as they appear at the time.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: How does this attitude compare with that of those countries which have definitely refused permission for such a film ever to be made?

Dr. Summerskill: I am coming to that. I think I have anticipated most of the points that will be raised.
The great weight of the opinion expressed about Mr. Thorsen's activities, and the substantial risk that if he were to come, at any rate in the immediately foreseeable future, his presence and conduct might be damaging to public order, will weigh very heavily in the scales.
A watch is being kept for the arrival of Mr. Thorsen, and my right hon. Friend has arranged for it to be reported to him by the Immigration Service.
A number of people, including hon. Members, have suggested that Mr. Thorsen has been prevented from making his film in other European countries. The implication is that he has been refused admission to enter them. From inquiries that we have made this does not appear to be the case. As far as we know, he has not been formally refused entry to any other European country, but he has been refused financial support from public funds to assist him in making a film. This certainly happened in both Denmark and Sweden. I should emphasise that it is hardly likely that Mr. Thorsen can be expecting to obtain such financial assistance in the United Kingdom.
I now turn to the question of the power to prevent Mr. Thorsen making his film and the allied question of censorship. Neither my right hon. Friend nor anyone else has powers to control the making of films in this country, whether to prevent production or to interfere with the content of films while they are being made. There is nothing to stop anyone making a film in the privacy of his own home, for example. However, if, in the making or showing of the film, criminal offences should be involved, it would be for the prosecuting authorities to decide what action should be taken.
Blasphemy has been mentioned. There is an offence of blasphemy at common law. Although the Home Secretary has no responsibility for the institution of proceedings in particular cases, I have

no doubt that the prosecuting authorities would look carefully into any alleged offence at the relevant time.
Whether a film is made in this country or elsewhere it can be publicly shown here only with the approval of the film censorship authorities. The Government play no part in censorship matters. The final decision on the showing of any film rests with the local cinema licensing authority—in London the Greater London Council and elsewhere the district councils. Although these authorities are normally guided by the advice of the unofficial British Board of Film Censors, they will commonly insist upon seeing films of a particularly controversial nature which they can consider in the light of their knowledge of local opinions and feelings. The question whether a particular film should be allowed to be shown publicly can, of course, be considered only when the completed film is submitted for censorship. I believe that Mr. Thorsen said at one stage that even if the film were made here he did not expect it to be allowed to be shown in this country.
I have seen it argued that because of the agitation that Mr. Thorsen and his film have caused and the publicity that he has received it is now more likely that he will get the financial support he is seeking to make his film. I can only say that I sincerely hope that this will not prove to be so and that the outcry has not helped him in any way. I hope, indeed, that he will recognise the strength of public feeling that has been expressed here and not outrage it further by trying to come here and make his film. As I have said, if he does so we shall decide what to do on the facts then before us. I can assure the House that the views that hon. Members have expressed in this debate and those in the very many letters sent to the Home Office will be borne fully in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Three o'clock a.m.